/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230921.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, September 21, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 190
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Driscoll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Elmore Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Goldfeder Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
800-FLOWERS INC: Paiz Sues Over Auto Renewal of Offer Subscription
ABBOTT EMS: $500,000 Deal in BIPA Class Suit Gets Prelim OK
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Faces Mendoza Genetic Discrimination Class Suit
AETNA INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Peters Suit to 4th Cir.
AETNA INC: Files 4th Cir. Appeal in Peters' ERISA Suit
AGRI STATS: Direct Purchaser Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod
AMARE GLOBAL: Finch Files TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Ads
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Returned Goods' Charges
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Hearing on Bid to Remand Continued to Oct. 23
AMERICAN HONDA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 27, 2024
AMERICOR FUNDING: Scott Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline
ARCHER-DANIELS MIDLAND: Continues to Defend AOT Class Suit
AVANADE INC: Laird Suit Removed to N.D. California
BGC HOUSING: Sued Over Building Delays, Additional Project Costs
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CANADA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over CRA Cyberattack
CARECENTRIX INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $6.3M
CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert & Decertification Bid Due Nov. 10
CARROS INC: Ferguson Files 9th Cir. Appeal in FLSA Suit
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Bid for Terminating Sanctions Partly Granted
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Disney Breach of Contract Class Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Turner Appeals Court Ruling to 9th Cir.
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Final OK Hearing of $53M Settlement Set Oct 23
COBRA SPECIAL RESPONSE: Golden Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
CONVERSE INC: Gutierrez Suit Removed to C.D. California
COOPERFRIEDMAN ELECTRIC: Clark Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments
CORECIVIC INC: Bid to Unseal Docs in Barrientos Partly OK'd
COSTCO WHOLESALE: COBRA Notice Class Action Settlement Discussed
CROWN CREST: Faces Class Suit Over Door-to-Door Rental Fraud
CRUNCHBASE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 2, 2024
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Crowl Files Suit in N.D. California
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Danna Files Suit in N.D. California
D CARBON LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bejarano Alleges
D.R. HORTON: Faces Class Suit Over Defective and Damaged Houses
DUKE CAPITAL: Bid for Scheduling Conference Denied w/o Prejudice
EDGIO INC: Assad Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval
EDGIO INC: Faces Esfandiari Class Suit in Arizona
EL CENTRO DEL BARRIO: Faces 350,000-Record Data Breach Class Suits
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bartenev Files Suit in S.D. New York
EXTRA SPACE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Arias Suit Alleges
FACEAPP INC: Purchase Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
FAIRWORTH 365: Owusu Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
FARMERS INSURANCE: Graham Files Suit in D. Montana
FCA US: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to March 13, 2024
FIVE STAR: Torres Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Job Misclassification
FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES: Dipierro Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
FORD-UAW RETIREMENT: Court Narrows Claims in McGlynn Class Suit
FULL KEE SEAFOOD: Villegas Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GARDEN MEDITERRANEAN: Elgharabawi Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
GERSHMAN INVESTMENT: Settles Richardson Class Suit Over Data Breach
GOODYEAR TIRE: Alves Appeals Privacy Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
GOOGLE LLC: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Cabrera Smart Pricing Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Sued by UK Customers Over Unfair Business Practices
GOOGLE LLC: Tentatively Settles Class Suit Over Play Store Charges
GREEN BUILDING SUPPLY: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces Class Suit Over Maui Wildfires
HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces 25 Class Suits Over Patients' Data Breach
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Franz Suit Over Defective 2023 Vehicles
JACKSON NATIONAL: Heinz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Roman Suit
JOHNSON, TN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sexual Assault
JOINT CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alspach Suit Claims
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Krefting Suit Transferred to D. Oregon
KESEF LLC: Faces Duran Suit Over Butchers' Unpaid Overtime
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Agrees to Settle CPAP Suit for $615-Mil.
KONTOOR BRANDS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LDS CHURCH: Gaddy Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir.
LENNYS SHOE & APPAREL: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LESLIE'S INC: West Palm Sues Over 47% Drop of Common Stock Price
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Janes Suit Removed to C.D. California
LUCKYPET INC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MADISON REED: Faces Class Suit Over Spam Text Messages
MAGNA MODULAR: Faces Rupert Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Michigan
MAJESTIC ASSOCIATES: Ubri Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Porters
MAJOR ENERGY: Foote Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
MARATHON REFINING: Bid to Trim Claims Wage Class Action Ok'd
MAYOR TRANSPORTATION: Edwards Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MEMORIAL HEART: Cahill Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
META PLATFORMS: 17M Users to Get Settlement Payment in Privacy Suit
META PLATFORMS: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Medical Privacy
METLIFE GROUP: Knudsen Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
MILITARY ADVANTAGE: Settles Facebook Privacy Class Suit for $7.35M
MILLENIA COMPANIES: Faces Class Suit Over 2022 Deadly Explosion
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Lentil Chips Suit Denied
MONEY NETWORK FINANCIAL: Silva Files Suit in C.D. California
MYERS OF KESWICK: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Flores Suit
NEW YORK COMPUTER: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Bowser Class Suit Over Boot and Tow Policy
NIO INC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
OPENAI INC: Faces Chabon Suit Over Copyright Violations
OPENAI INC: Faces Suit Over Consumer Privacy Laws' Violations
ORRICK HERRINGTON: Faces Class Suit Over March 2023 Cyberattack
PANERA LLC: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
PAPA JOHN'S: Schnur Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
PBM ENTERPRISES: Faces Washington Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Texas
PENSION BENEFIT: Golestani Files Suit in D. Minnesota
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRCT: Tannen Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Severance Class Suit
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Okonoski Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
PURFOODS LLC: Douglas Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
RADIUS GLOBAL: Daggett Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
REGAL SECURITIES: Hoffman Sues Over Data Breach
RELIANCE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Ventura Suit Alleges
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Made in USA Label "Deceptive," Mayfield Claims
RGV BOOT JACK: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RMS US LLP: Monroe Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Mirabadi Suit Removed to C.D. California
SIGNALHIRE LLC: Gaul Sues Over Unlawful Use of Names and Identities
SODEXO SA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Platt Suit to 9th Cir.
SONDER HOLDINGS: Wang Files Suit in D. Colorado
STATE FARM: Sasson Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Arbuckle Sues Over Improper Insurance Costs
TESLA INC: Faces Employees' Class Suit Over Unprotected Info
TEXAS ENT SPECIALISTS: Settles 2021 Data Breach Class Suit
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: $15M Deal in Untimely Wages Suit Gets Final OK
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Ford Sues Over Illegal Fee Charging of Veterans
WELLS FARGO: $1-Bil. Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final OK
WILLOWS APARTMENTS: Faces Suit Over Apartment Complex Conditions
ZUFFA LLC: Faces Class Suit Over UFC Fight Pass Subscription Plans
[*] Appellate Court Allows UK Trucks Claim to Continue
*********
3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff A. Davis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04114-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Driscoll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Driscoll, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04115-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Elmore Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen W. Elmore, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04116-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Goldfeder Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Goldfeder, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04117-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Green, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04119-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
800-FLOWERS INC: Paiz Sues Over Auto Renewal of Offer Subscription
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANAYANCY PAIZ, SUSAN FINKBEINER, LARISSA RAPADAS, and TESSIBLE
"SKYLER" FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 800-FLOWERS, INC., D/B/A 1-800-FLOWERS.COM,
HARRY & DAVID, PERSONALIZATION MALL, SHARI'S BERRIES,
1-800-BASKETS.COM, SIMPLY CHOCOLATE, FRUIT BOUQUETS.COM, CHERYL'S
COOKIES, THE POPCORN FACTORY, WOLFERMAN'S BAKERY, and VITAL CHOICE,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-07441 (C.D. Cal., September 7, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law and the California's False
Advertising Law.
The case arises from Defendant 800-Flowers, Inc.'s illegal
automatic renewal scheme with respect to its Celebrations Passport
product, which it sells on its network of websites. Specifically,
the Defendant systematically violates the California's Automatic
Renewal Law by: (i) failing to present the automatic renewal offer
terms applicable to the Celebrations Passport in a clear and
conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for
consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing
agreement is fulfilled, in violation of Section 17602(a)(1); (ii)
charging consumers' Payment Method without first obtaining
affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic
renewal offer terms, in violation of Section 17602(a)(2); and (iii)
failing to provide notice of the renewal between 15 and 45 days
before the automatic renewal occurs, in direct violation of Section
17602(b)(2). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17602(a)(l), (a)(2), and
(b)(2). As a result, all goods, wares, merchandise, or products
sent to the Plaintiffs and the Class through the unlawful automatic
renewal of a continuous service agreement are deemed to be
unconditional gifts under the ARL, says the suit.
800-Flowers, Inc. is an online retailer of flowers and gifts,
headquartered in Jericho, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
David W. Hall, Esq.
Armen Zohrabian, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 766-3534
Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
dhall@hedinhall.com
azohrabian@hedinhall.com
ABBOTT EMS: $500,000 Deal in BIPA Class Suit Gets Prelim OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris of Madison - St. Clair Record reports that owners of
ambulance provider Abbott EMS settled a potential class action over
biometric privacy of fingerprints for $499,000 on Aug. 14.
U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle granted preliminary approval on
Aug. 30.
The amount represents $1,000 for each employee who used time clocks
at Abbott locations in Illinois since 2017.
However, employees won't receive $1,000 each because the settlement
amount includes legal fees and costs, which Yandle limited to 35%.
Former Abbott employee Amy Newton filed the suit in St. Clair
County Circuit Court last year, alleging violations of state
biometric privacy law.
Newton's counsel Brandon Wise and Paul Lesko of St. Louis claimed
Abbott didn't inform employees in writing that it captured,
collected and stored her information.
Wise and Lesko claimed Abbott didn't inform employees in writing of
the specific purpose and length of term for which it collected,
stored, and used the information.
They claimed Abbott didn't obtain written consent as a condition of
employment.
They defined the class as all persons who used a biometric clock
while working for Abbott in Illinois in the applicable statutory
period.
They sought statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent
violation and $5,000 for each reckless and intentional violation.
Abbott counsel Orly Henry of Chicago removed the case to district
court, claiming the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million
maximum for state court jurisdiction.
Henry claimed Newton alleged five violations per class member.
He attached a declaration of Abbott human relations director
Jennifer Buckner, stating its sole member is American Medical
Response in Colorado.
She stated Abbott employed Newton from November 2020 to August
2021.
Abbott moved to stay proceedings in April, pending an Illinois
Supreme Court decision in Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital.
Ingalls Memorial Hospital alleges the law bars recovery for health
care workers.
Yandle granted a stay in May and ordered the parties to inform her
of the Court's decision.
The Justices hadn't reached a decision by Aug. 14, but Newton and
Abbott decided not to wait.
Adam Florek of Chicago, who appeared as counsel for Newton in May,
filed the motion for preliminary approval of settlement.
Yandle set a Dec. 4 deadline for class members to exclude
themselves or raise objections.
She set a final approval hearing for Jan. 18. [GN]
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Faces Mendoza Genetic Discrimination Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Advocate Health and
Hospitals Corporation and Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. face a
proposed class action in which an Illinois employee claims the
healthcare system operators unlawfully required her to provide her
family medical history as part of the hiring process.
According to the 17-page case, the Illinois Genetic Information
Privacy Act (GIPA) prohibits companies from asking about or using
genetic information -- including an individual's family medical
history -- to make employment decisions.
However, the plaintiff claims she was required to submit a
pre-employment physical revealing her family medical history when
she applied for a position with Advocate Health and Hospitals
Corporation and Advocate Aurora Health in September 2021.
During the physical, a medical provider employed by the defendants
asked the plaintiff to disclose both verbally and in writing
whether her parents had developed medical conditions with genetic
predispositions, such as cardiac health, cancer and diabetes, the
complaint alleges.
The lawsuit claims the defendants evaluate this information so they
can make hiring decisions that best shield themselves from
liability for workplace injuries or deaths caused by genetic
conditions. For example, the healthcare system operators may avoid
hiring a candidate they believe has inherited ailments that could
be exacerbated by high-stress or physically demanding workplace
conditions, the filing says.
The complaint explains that the GIPA was first passed in 1998 with
the goal of ensuring that genetic information is not used to
discriminate against employees.
"Consistent with this goal, GIPA provides strong legal protections
to ensure that Illinois residents can take advantage of the
knowledge that can be gained from obtaining personal genetic
information, without fear that this same information could be used
by employers to discriminate against them," the case reads.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Illinois who, within the
past five years, applied for employment with or was employed by
Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation or Advocate Aurora Health
and from whom the defendants or agents acting on their behalf
requested and/or obtained genetic information, including family
medical history, in connection with their application or their
employment with the defendants. [GN]
AETNA INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Peters Suit to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AETNA, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting class certification in the lawsuit entitled Sandra M.
Peters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aetna, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-00109-MR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings this putative class action against the Defendants, asserting
claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA). In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Aetna
engaged in a fraudulent scheme with its subcontractor Optum,
whereby insureds were caused to pay Optum's administrative fees
because the Defendants misrepresented such fees as medical
expenses.
On Aug. 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Martin
Reidinger on June 5, 2023.
On June 19, 2023, the Defendants asked the Court to reconsider its
Class Certification Order, which the Court denied through an Order
entered by Judge Reidinger on Aug. 8, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Aetna, Inc., et al., Petitioners,
v. Sandra M. Peters, Respondent, Case No. 23-239, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 23,
2023. [BN]
Defendants-Petitioners OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. are
represented by:
Brian D. Boone, Esq.
Michael R. Hoernlein, Esq.
Brandon C.E. Springer, Esq.
Vantage South End
1120 S. Tryon St. #300
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone: (704) 444-1000
E-mail: brian.boone@alston.com
michael.hoernlein@alston.com
brandon.springer@alston.com
AETNA INC: Files 4th Cir. Appeal in Peters' ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
AETNA, INC., et al. have filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled
Sandra M. Peters, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aetna, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings this putative class action against the Defendants, asserting
claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA). In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Aetna
engaged in a fraudulent scheme with its subcontractor Optum,
whereby insureds were caused to pay Optum's administrative fees
because the Defendants misrepresented such fees as medical
expenses.
On Aug. 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Martin
Reidinger on June 5, 2023.
On June 19, 2023, the Defendants asked the Court to reconsider its
order granting the Plaintiff's class certification, but Judge
Reidinger denied the request on Aug. 8, 2023.
On Aug. 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
extension of time to file class notice, which the Court granted in
part and denied in part. Specifically, the motion was granted to
the extent that Plaintiff's deadline to file the Class Notice(s)
was extended seven days, through and including August 29, 2023. The
motion was otherwise denied without prejudice to refiling if the
Defendants file a Rule 23(f) Petition.
The appellate case is captioned Aetna, Inc., et al., v. Sandra
Peters, Case No. 23-241, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on August 24, 2023. [BN]
Defendants-Petitioners AETNA INCORPORATED, et al. are represented
by:
Earl B. Austin, III, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
4500 Trammell Crow Center
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 953-6542
- and -
Earl Thomison Holman, Esq.
HOLMAN LAW, PLLC
56 College Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 252-7381
- and -
Matthew Scott Roberson, Esq.
MCGUIRE, WOOD & BISSETTE, PA
48 Patton Avenue
P.O. Box 3180
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone: (828) 254-8800
Plaintiff-Respondent SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
Nell Z. Peyser, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
485 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 704-9600
(212) 897-3436
- and -
Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
Alyssa Marie Howard, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
1800 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 778-1800
- and -
Heather Whitaker Goldstein, Esq.
Larry Stephen McDevitt, Esq.
David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 North Market Street
P.O. Box 7376
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
AGRI STATS: Direct Purchaser Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duryea et al v. Agri
Stats, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-JFD (D. Minn.), the
Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim entered an order granting motion for
preliminary approval of the Direct Purchaser class action
settlement with Seaboard Foods LLC and motion for approval of class
notice.
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") have entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Seaboard Foods LLC. The Court previously granted
DPPs' motion for class certification.
The Settlement was entered into on behalf of the Class certified by
this Court in its order dated March 29, 2023:
"All persons and entities who directly purchased one or more
of the following types of pork, or products derived from the
following types of pork, from Defendants, or their respective
subsidiaries or affiliates, for use or delivery in the United
States from June 29, 2014 through June 30, 2018: fresh or
frozen loins, shoulders, ribs, bellies, bacon, or hams. For this
lawsuit, pork excludes any product that is marketed as organic
or as no antibiotics ever (NAE); any product that is fully
cooked or breaded; any product other than bacon that is
marinated, flavored, cured, or smoked; and ready-to-eat
bacon."
Excluded from this Class are the Defendants, the officers,
directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which
any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate,
legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant.
Also excluded from this Class are any federal, state or local
governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this
action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial
staff, any juror assigned to this action, and any Co-Conspirator
identified in this action.
The Court previously appointed the law firms of Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., and Pearson Warshaw, LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel
for the Certified Class.
Agri Stats is a statistical research and analysis firm serving
agribusiness companies domestically and internationally.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rhyn6T at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55401
The Defendants are represented by:
William L. Greene, Esq.
STINSON LLP
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
AMARE GLOBAL: Finch Files TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANI FINCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMARE GLOBAL, LP, Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-01637-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., September 1, 2023) is a putative
class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant is a mental wellness company that sells a range of
products related to nutrition, health and mental wellness. To
promote its services, Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited
marketing, harming Plaintiff and thousands of consumers in the
process, says the suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Returned Goods' Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Amazon.com (AMZN.O)
customers sued the online retail giant in U.S. court in Seattle,
claiming they were charged for purchases that had been returned on
time.
Four residents of Illinois, Minnesota and Missouri said in the
proposed class action lawsuit on September 5, 2023 that Amazon
"wrongfully re-charged the purchase price and applicable taxes" for
their returns.
Amazon had "knowledge of its systemic failure to deliver on its
promise of refunds for timely returned items," they said.
A spokesperson for Amazon on September 6, 2023 had no immediate
comment.
The new lawsuit comes as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has been
said to be preparing to file a complaint accusing Amazon of
anticompetitive business practices.
Amazon separately faces pending consumer antitrust lawsuits in
Seattle over its pricing policies. California is also suing Amazon
in state court over its business practices. Amazon has denied
wrongdoing in the cases.
Amazon's customer return practices have resulted in "substantial
unjustified monetary losses by those who either do not notice" they
have been charged or were "deterred by the inconvenience of having
to figure out what happened and how to fix it," on September 5,
2023 lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs, represented by law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, are seeking class action status on behalf of millions of
U.S. residents over the past six years who were allegedly charged
by Amazon after returning purchases on time and in their original
condition.
The plaintiffs are asking for triple damages under Washington
state's consumer protection act, in addition to other relief. Their
lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
September 6, 2023.
Quinn Emanuel has sued Amazon before. The large, national firm is
among a group of law firms representing consumers who accuse Amazon
of artificially inflating the prices for goods on the company's
website. That case is pending, and Amazon has denied any
liability.
The case is Abbott v. Amazon.com Inc, U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, No. 2:23-cv-01372.
For plaintiffs: Alicia Cobb, Matthew Hosen and Andrew Schapiro of
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; Aaron Zigler of Zigler Law
Group
For Amazon: No appearance yet [GN]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Hearing on Bid to Remand Continued to Oct. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE ROKSANDIC, as an
individual, and on behalf all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02322-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting stipulation to
continue case deadlines.
1. The hearing on Plaintiff Katherine Roksandic's motion to
remand
is continued to October 23, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.
2. The opposition to the motion to remand shall be due on
October
2, 2023.
3. The reply in support of the motion to remand shall be due on
October 9, 2023.
4. The motion for class certification shall be due on March 12,
2024.
American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services
for passengers and cargo.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pzuzgb at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 27, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN BURGOS, et al, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. and HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., Case
No. 2:23-cv-02128-AB-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte
Jr. entered an order setting the following schedule for class
certification:
Event Deadline
Deadline to file Motion for Class Sept. 27, 2024
Certification and serve Plaintiffs'
expert disclosures and reports
Deadline to file opposition to Motion Dec. 20, 2024
For Class Certification and serve AHM's
Expert disclosures and reports
Deadline to file reply regarding Motion Feb. 14, 2025
For Class Certification
Class Certification Hearing Mar. 28, 2025
American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pi2Q1T at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICOR FUNDING: Scott Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIVON SCOTT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICOR
FUNDING, LLC d/b/a AMERICOR FINANCIAL, Case No. 1:23-cv-02457-VMC
(N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for extension
of class certification deadline.
The Plaintiff contends that the has pursued discovery from
Defendant but needs additional time to complete the discovery given
that the Defendant's responses are not yet due.
The discovery he needs to complete is necessary so he can meet his
burden in moving for class certification, the Plaintiff adds.
Americor is a FinTech company that uses a proprietary online
platform designed to provide debt relief to clients.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug.28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PCsZtV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (305) 336-7466
- and -
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Garrett Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
ARCHER-DANIELS MIDLAND: Continues to Defend AOT Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for
the quarterly period ending July 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the AOT class suit.
On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG ("AOT") filed a putative class
action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges.
On March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second
named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC ("Maize").
AOT and Maize allege that members of the putative class
collectively suffered damages calculated to be between
approximately $500 million to over $2.0 billion as a result of the
Company’s alleged actions.
On July 14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities
(“GP”) filed a putative class action lawsuit, alleging
substantially the same operative facts, in federal court in
Nebraska, seeking to represent sellers of ethanol.
On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC ("MRE") filed a
putative class action in federal court in Illinois alleging
substantially the same operative facts and asserting claims under
the Sherman Act.
On November 11, 2020, United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC ("UWGP")
and five other ethanol producers filed a lawsuit in federal court
in Illinois alleging substantially the same facts and asserting
claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin law.
The court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the MRE and UWGP
complaints without prejudice on August 9, 2021 and September 28,
2021, respectively.
On August 16, 2021, the court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the
GP complaint, dismissing one claim with prejudice and declining
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.
MRE filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2021, which ADM moved
to dismiss on September 27, 2021. UWGP filed an amended complaint
on October 19, 2021, which the court dismissed on July 12, 2022.
UWGP has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
On October 26, 2021, GP filed a new complaint in Nebraska federal
district court, alleging substantially the same facts and asserting
a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations.
On March 18, 2022, the Nebraska federal district court granted
ADM's motion to transfer the GP case back to the Central District
of Illinois for further proceedings. ADM moved to dismiss the
complaint on May 20, 2022 and on December 30, 2022, the court
dismissed GP's complaint with prejudice. GP has appealed the
dismissal.
The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself in
these actions.
Archer-Daniels-Midland company is a food processing company based
in Illinois.
AVANADE INC: Laird Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Madison Laird, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Avanade Inc., Case No.
CGC-23-607346 was removed from the San Francisco County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Aug. 18, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04237-CRB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Avanade -- https://www.avanade.com/en -- is a global professional
services company providing IT consulting and services focused on
the Microsoft platform with artificial intelligence, business
analytics, cloud, application services, digital transformation,
modern workplace, security services, technology and managed
services offerings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Victor Feghali, Esq.
Jacquelyne P. VanEmmerik, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
jvanemmerik@moonlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joan B. Tucker Fife
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
Phone: (415) 591-1513
Fax: (415) 591-1400
Email: jfife@winston.com
- and -
Tristan Reid Kirk
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 615-1700
Email: tkirk@winston.com
BGC HOUSING: Sued Over Building Delays, Additional Project Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Adshead of 6PR reports that major construction firm BGC are
potentially facing a class action lawsuit brought on by thousands
of disgruntled customers, who have secured funding for the possible
court case.
Up to 5000 litigants could be included in the action, which would
potentially be funded by Morgan Alteruthemeyer Legal Group. BGC
Proposed Class Action Group founder Jess Spithoven told Gary
Adshead on 6PR Mornings the action would be a necessary step in the
minds of those who have lost out in the construction industry
crisis.
"We want to find a solution that works for everybody; nobody really
wants to start a class action, but we end up in these situations
sometimes where we need to do this," Ms Spithoven said. [GN]
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattanooga.com reports that a group of employees terminated by
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BCBST) pertaining to the
Covid-19 vaccine mandate has filed suit in Chattanooga Federal
Court against the insuror.
The suit was brought by lead plaintiffs James M. Abernathy, Kerrie
Ingle and Heather Hutton.
A spokesman for the group said after a lengthy investigative
process by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
since November 2021, the terminated employees have received their
right to sue letters and had filed the class action suit in federal
court.
Between October and November 2021, BCBST terminated 41 of their
employees after BCBST implemented a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for
900 "customer facing roles."
The group said many of the 900 employees were not "customer facing"
but were full time telecommuters and had been working from home
during the entire pandemic.
The livelihoods of these 900 employees were threatened if they
refused to comply with BCBST's vaccine mandate, the group said.
Out of the 900, 41 refused to comply with BCBST's mandate and were
fired from their positions. Some still have yet to secure
employment, it was stated.
In October 2021, 19 employees were terminated. In November 2021, 22
additional employees were fired weeks ahead of a Tennessee law
being passed to prevent BCBST from moving forward with the mandate.
Many submitted requests for religious exemptions and reasonable
accommodations, it was stated.
The group said, "Rather than provide a reasonable accommodation
such as a telecommuting option (an option that was currently in
place and was continuing for the entire year) or a testing option,
BCBST's response was that you have 30 days to change your deeply
held religious convictions and get the shot, find a new job, or be
fired. Requests for religious exemptions were ultimately denied."
The case has been assigned to Judge Curtis Collier. [GN]
BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BurgerFi International of Yahoo! Finance reports that BurgerFi
International, Inc. (Nasdaq: BFI, BFIIW) ("BurgerFi" or the
"Company"), owner of one of the nation's leading fast-casual
"better burger" dining concepts through the BurgerFi brand, and the
high-quality, casual dining pizza and wings concept under the name
Anthony's Coal Fired Pizza & Wings ("Anthony's") brand, announces
that the lead plaintiffs in the previously disclosed securities
class action lawsuit filed on April 6, 2023 against BurgerFi and
certain current and former executives have voluntarily dismissed
the lawsuit.
On September 5, 2023, United States District Court Judge Raag
Singhal for the Southern District of Florida issued an order
dismissing the class action lawsuit in the case of John Walker v.
BurgerFi International, Inc. et al., Case No. 023-cv-60657, and
closed the case, with each party bearing its own fees and costs.
The lead plaintiffs have agreed to not refile the case.
Management Commentary
"BurgerFi is thankful that this lawsuit has been dismissed so that
we can focus on moving forward without the distraction of the
lawsuit," stated BurgerFi's Chief Executive Officer Carl Bachmann.
About BurgerFi International (Nasdaq: BFI, BFIIW)
BurgerFi International, Inc. is a leading multi-brand restaurant
company that develops, markets, and acquires fast-casual and
premium-casual dining restaurant concepts around the world,
including corporate-owned stores and franchises. BurgerFi
International is the owner and franchisor of the two following
brands with a combined 174 locations.
BurgerFi. BurgerFi is among the nation's fast-casual better burger
concepts with 114 BurgerFi restaurants (87 franchised and 27
corporate-owned) as of July 3, 2023. BurgerFi is chef-founded and
committed to serving fresh, all-natural and quality food at all
locations, online and via first-party and third-party deliveries.
BurgerFi uses 100% American Angus Beef with no steroids,
antibiotics, growth hormones, chemicals or additives. BurgerFi's
menu also includes high-quality Wagyu Beef Blend Burgers,
Antibiotic and Cage-Free Chicken offerings, Hand-Cut Sides, and
Frozen Custard Shakes. BurgerFi was named "The Very Best Burger" at
the 2023 edition of the nationally acclaimed SOBE Wine and Food
Festival and "Best Fast Food Burger" in USA Today's 10Best 2023
Readers' Choice Awards for its BBQ Rodeo Burger, "Best Fast Casual
Restaurant" in USA Today's 10Best 2023 Readers' Choice Awards for
the third consecutive year, QSR Magazine's Breakout Brand of 2020
and Fast Casual's 2021 #1 Brand of the Year. In 2021, Consumer
Reports awarded BurgerFi an "A Grade Angus Beef" rating for the
third consecutive year. To learn more about BurgerFi or to find a
full list of locations, please visit www.burgerfi.com. Download the
BurgerFi App on iOS or Android devices for rewards and 'Like' or
follow @BurgerFi on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. BurgerFi® is
a Registered Trademark of BurgerFi IP, LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of BurgerFi.
Anthony's. Anthony's was acquired by BurgerFi on November 3, 2021
and is a premium pizza and wing brand that operates 60
corporate-owned casual restaurant locations, as of July 3, 2023.
Known for serving fresh, never frozen and quality ingredients,
Anthony's is centered around a 900-degree coal-fired oven with menu
offerings including "well-done" pizza, coal-fired chicken wings,
homemade meatballs, and a variety of handcrafted sandwiches and
salads. Anthony's was named "The Best Pizza Chain in America" by
USA Today's Great American Bites and "Top 3 Best Major Pizza Chain"
by Mashed in 2021. To learn more about Anthony's, please visit
www.acfp.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release may contain "forward-looking statements" as
defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Forward-looking statements generally can be identified by words
such as "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "expects,"
"intends," "plans," "predicts," "projects," "will be," "will
continue," "will likely result," and similar expressions. These
forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and
assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties, which
could cause our actual results to differ materially from those
reflected in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could
cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not
limited to, those discussed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended January 2, 2023, and those discussed in other
documents we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All
subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable
to BurgerFi or persons acting on BurgerFi's behalf are expressly
qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements included
in this press release. We undertake no obligation to revise or
publicly release the results of any revision to these
forward-looking statements, except as required by law. Given these
risks and uncertainties, readers are cautioned not to place undue
reliance on such forward-looking statements.
Investor Relations:
ICR
Michelle Michalski
IR-BFI@icrinc.com
646-277-1224
Company Contact:
BurgerFi International Inc.
IR@burgerfi.com
Media Relations Contact:
Ink Link Marketing Kim Miller
Kmiller@inklinkmarketing.com [GN]
CANADA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over CRA Cyberattack
-------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Consky of CTV News reports that the Federal Court of
Canada has certified a class action lawsuit against the federal
government, which alleges negligence in "safeguarding the
confidential information of Canadians, leading to widespread
privacy breaches."
The suit follows cyberattacks that targeted Canada Revenue Agency
accounts and other government services back in 2020.
The plaintiff, Todd Sweet, a retired police officer from B.C.,
claims that "inadequate safeguards" within several online
government portals threw sensitive information in jeopardy,
allowing "bad actors" to access the online accounts of Canadians
without their consent.
Along with claiming private accounts were breached, Sweet alleges
that hackers were able to fraudulently apply for the Canada
Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), possibly disqualifying the
people in need from receiving the necessary funding.
Sweet is asking the court to order the Canadian government to
financially compensate those whose accounts were compromised, as
well as issue monitoring services that may be needed to repair the
harm imposed.
The allegations made in the lawsuit have not been tested in court.
According to the notice of certification, the federal government
denies any wrongdoing in the matter.
In August 2020, the CRA temporarily suspended its online services
after two cyberattacks compromised thousands of stolen usernames
and passwords.
According to the federal government, a total of 11,200 accounts for
federal government services were targeted in what was described as
"credential stuffing" schemes – a ploy in which hackers use
passwords and usernames from other online portals to access
Canadians' accounts with the CRA.
Officials said they first discovered the security breaches on Aug.
7, 2020, but didn't contact the RCMP until Aug. 11, 2020.
Anyone whose personal or financial information in their Government
of Canada Online Account was accessed by an unauthorized third
party between March 1 and Dec. 31 of 2020 is automatically included
in this class action. Government of Canada Online Accounts include
CRA accounts, My Service Canada accounts and any other federal
government services that are accessed using GCKey.
Those affected by these security breaches don't need to do anything
to be involved in these class action proceedings, but can choose to
opt out of the lawsuit, the notice said.
They can opt out by filling out a form posted on the website of the
law firm representing the case.They must do this by Nov. 27.
An opt-out form and email address can also be found at the bottom
of the notice of certification.
The notice further explained that damages will be sought for the
class as a whole, meaning the judge would determine how any
compensation should be divided among affected members. [GN]
CARECENTRIX INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $6.3M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that CareCentrix has agreed to a $6.3
million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit in relation to
a data breach.
The settlement class is made up of those in the United States whose
personally identifiable information was alleged as potentially
exfiltrated between Aug. 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019, in the
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) security incident.
The lawsuit alleged negligence and a long list of accusations,
including the violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, the New York Consumer Law for Deceptive Acts and New York's
data breach laws concerning delayed notification to the settlement
class representatives.
CareCentrix formerly used a company named Retrieval-Masters
Creditor's Bureau, Inc., doing business as AMCA, to pursue
outstanding amounts owed by healthcare benefit recipients for whom
it had coordinated benefits.
AMCA is part of a debt-collection agency that specializes in
medical debt collection. According to a news release from the
Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, "AMCA
failed to detect the intrusion despite warnings from banks that
processed its payments. The unauthorized user was able to collect a
wide variety of personal information, including Social Security
numbers, payment card information, and, in some instances, names of
medical tests and diagnostic codes."
CareCentrix denies wrongdoing but has offered the settlement to
avoid the risk associated with a trial.
Class members have the option of filing a claim for reimbursement
of up to $5,000 for verifiable expenses associated with the
CareCentrix and AMCA data breach, including up to 10 hours at $25
per hour for verified and documented time spent taking preventative
measures and time spent remedying issues caused by the data breach;
or they may claim an alternative compensation of up to $50. Both of
these amounts are subject to pro rata adjustments, depending on the
number of claims filed.
Class members residing in California are entitled to an additional
$50, which also may be increased or decreased depending on the
number of claims submitted.
Members of the class may also enroll for up to three years of
credit-monitoring services.
Class members must submit a claim form to be eligible for any
payment.
Class members may exclude themselves from the CareCentrix and AMCA
data breach settlement class or object to the settlement in writing
by Oct. 3, 2023.
The final approval hearing will be held Oct. 31, 2023.
The claim form deadline is Jan. 31, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Those in the United States whose personally identifiable
information was alleged as potentially exfiltrated between Aug. 1,
2018, and March 30, 2019, in the American Medical Collection Agency
security incident.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Third-party documentation such as credit card statements, bank
statements, invoices, telephone records or receipts
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
01/31/2024
Case Name
In re: American Medical Collection Agency Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, Civil Action No. 19-md-2904 (MCA)(MAH),
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Final Hearing
10/31/2023
Settlement Website
AMCADataSettlement-CCX.com
Claims Administrator
CareCentrix Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA19103
844-541-1114
Class Counsel
James Cecchi
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO PC
Joseph J DePalma
LITE DEPALMA GREEBERGY & AFANADOR LLC
Amy E Keller
DICELLO LEVITT LLC
HAUSFELD LLP
Defense Counsel
Lane Davis William Brown and David Dill
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP [GN]
CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert & Decertification Bid Due Nov. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Niemczynski v. Carriage
Healthcare Companies Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00127 (E.D.
Wisc., Filed Feb. 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order
granting the joint motion for extension of time. The parties may
have until November 10, 2023, to file their respective motions for
class certification and decertification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Carriage provides health care management and operations
services.[CC]
CARROS INC: Ferguson Files 9th Cir. Appeal in FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
CAROL FERGUSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Carol Ferguson, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carros,
Inc., Gladstone Auto, LLC, and Maria Smith, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00372-SB, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendants for their failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On July 25, 2023, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the
Plaintiffs. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman finds, as a matter
of law, that the Plaintiffs and the collective members are entitled
to liquidated damages.
On Aug. 7, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' unopposed motion
to extend fee petition deadline. The deadline to file any
attorney's fee motion or bill of costs was Sept. 5, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Carol Ferguson, et al. v. Maria
Smith, et al., Case No. 23-35562, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 24, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Carol Ferguson and Lynda Freeman Mediation
Questionnaire was due on August 31, 2023;
-- Appellants Carol Ferguson and Lynda Freeman opening brief is
due on December 4, 2023;
-- Appellees Carros, Inc., Gladstone Auto, LLC and Maria Smith
answering brief is due on January 4, 2024;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief;
-- Appellants Carros, Inc., Gladstone Auto, LLC and Maria Smith
Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 31, 2023;
-- First cross appeal brief for Carol Ferguson and Lynda Freeman
is due on December 4, 2023;
-- Second brief on cross appeal for Carros, Inc., Gladstone
Auto, LLC and Maria Smith is due on January 4, 2024;
-- Third brief on cross appeal for Carol Ferguson and Lynda
Freeman is due on February 5, 2024; and
-- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Carros, Inc., Gladstone
Auto, LLC and Maria Smith is due within 21 days of service of Third
brief on cross appeal. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CAROL FERGUSON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jon M. Egan, Esq.
JON M. EGAN, PC
547 Fifth Street
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Telephone: (503) 697-3427
Defendants-Appellees MARIA SMITH, et al. are represented by:
Ian T. Maher, Esq.
LANE POWELL, PC
601 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 2100
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 778-2100
- and -
Douglas S. Parker, Esq.
LANE POWELL, PC
601 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 2100
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 778-2181
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Bid for Terminating Sanctions Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RADIO CITY, INC., et al.,
v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order:
-- Granting in part and denying in part motion for terminating
sanctions;
-- Granting in part and denying in part motion to strike;
-- Denying as moot administrative motion for leave to file sur-
reply;
-- Granting motion for leave to File amended complaint.
The Court will set a separate hearing to determine the amount of
attorneys’ fees. The parties shall stipulate or file a joint
statement with a proposed briefing schedule on or before September
8, 2023.
Celestron makes computerized and non-computerized telescopes,
spotting scopes, binoculars (which can come equipped with digital
cameras), and microscopes.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4876JiW at no extra charge.[CC]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Disney Breach of Contract Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Cho of The Hollywood Reporter reports that the ongoing
carriage dispute keeping Disney's channels off of Spectrum, Charter
Communications' cable TV service, has led to a proposed class
action against Charter from its subscribers, who claim they were
used as pawns in a "clear money grab" from the cable powerhouse.
A lawsuit filed on September 5, 2023 in Florida federal court
faults Charter for allegedly declining an offer from Disney to
extend negotiations, which would have kept Disney-owned channels
like the ESPN networks up for consumers in the middle of major
programming events, including the U.S. Open tennis tournament and
college football. It seeks an order that would require Charter to
cease blacking out Disney channels or provide reimbursement for
those that are not being provided. Charter has offered customers a
$15 rebate but only if they call in to customer service.
The proposed class action alleges breach of contract and violations
of Florida consumer protection laws. It looks to represent all
Charter customers whose access to Disney-owned networks was cut off
by the blackout, as well as a smaller class of Florida consumers
who were charged the entirety of their bill "despite not being
allotted access to all the advertised services." Charter is the
second-largest cable TV company in the U.S., with roughly 14.7
million subscribers.
On Aug. 31, Charter customers abruptly experienced an outage of
services before the start of the University of Florida and
University of Utah college football game, which kicked off the
college football season. When viewers turned to ESPN to watch the
game, they were met with a message from Charter that blamed Disney
for removing its programming from Spectrum.
"We offered Disney a fair deal, yet they are demanding an excessive
increase," the message stated. "They also want to limit our ability
to provide greater customer choice in programming packages forcing
you to take and pay for channels you may not want. We are very
disappointed with their position, which has negatively impacted our
customers."
The dispute has continued to keep Charter customers from accessing
Disney channels, including the SEC and ACC networks, FX and
National Geographic. The suit says consumers continue to suffer
damages in the form of monetary losses due to overcharges for
undelivered services, as well as the inconvenience of having to
find alternatives to watch their desired programming.
"Charter knew the debts they sought to collect were not legitimate
because Defendant had actual knowledge they were not providing the
contractually obligated services they were required to supply,"
states the complaint.
The suit argues Charter consumers are essentially being held
hostage by the company, which is looking to change the economics of
pay TV. The two sides have been negotiating what executives at
Charter called a "transformative" deal that could help provide a
"glide path" away from industry erosion caused by cord-cutting and
streaming. Other TV providers can benefit from the potential
agreement due to a "most favored nation" clause that allows them to
take advantage of better deals. Charter has taken issue with
Disney's demands for higher license fees and less packaging
flexibility, which it said "ignore the realities of a shifting
marketplace."
The company has threatened to abandon the video business altogether
if it cannot come to terms with Disney. The message broadcast to
customers at the start of the blackout stated, "The rising cost of
programming is the single greatest factor in higher cable TV
prices, and we are fighting hard to hold the line on programming
rates imposed on us by companies like Disney."
Notably, September 3, 2023 college football game between Florida
State and LSU averaged 9.1 million viewers on ABC -- up 20 percent
over the same matchup last year and a seven-year high on the
network -- despite Charter blacking out the channel to its
subscribers, per Nielsen data. [GN]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Turner Appeals Court Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Hassan Turner filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated August 24, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled LIONEL
HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO
ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Sacramento.
The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the
Defendant alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code's Private Attorney General Act and California's Business and
Professions Code.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Court previously
ruled on a motion by Charter to compel arbitration of all claims
brought by the Plaintiffs, except for Harper's PAGA claims,
deciding the motion in Charter's favor. It subsequently stayed the
action in its entirety, in part because of a case that was then
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Viking River Cruises, Inc.
v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1914 (2022), which had the potential to
impact the PAGA claims in this action.
On August 2, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel Harper to
arbitrate his "individual" PAGA claims, as distinct from his
"representative" PAGA claims, which the Court denied through an
Order entered by Judge William B. Shubb on September 7, 2022.
Judge Shubb held that the Solution Channel Agreement includes a
similar waiver of representative claims, although it does not
reference PAGA by name. Like the arbitration agreement in Viking
River Cruises, it also contains a severability clause. The Solution
Channel Agreement's waiver of representative actions, like the
"representative PAGA" action waiver in the arbitration agreement in
Viking River Cruises, is ambiguous as to the meaning of
"representative" as it applies to PAGA actions.
On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff Hassan Turner and Defendant Charter
Communications, LLC jointly submitted a Notice of Final Award of
Arbitrator and Joint Stipulation and Motion to Confirm Final Award
and Enter Judgment (Turner Arbitration), which provides that on
October 13, 2021, the Court granted Charter's motion to compel
individual arbitration of Turner's claims under the Mutual
Arbitration Agreement (also known as the Solution Channel
Agreement), and stayed his individual claims pending the completion
of arbitration proceedings; on June 16, 2023, Arbitrator Ruth V.
Glick, who was appointed by the American Arbitration Association
and presided over the arbitration between Turner and Charter,
issued an Interim Award; and on July 20, 2023, the Arbitrator
issued a Final Award that incorporated the Interim Award and
concluded the arbitration.
On August 24, 2023, having reviewed the Interim Award and Final
Award, and finding no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the Final
Award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, and pursuant to the
parties' stipulation, Judge Shubb entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion; confirming the Final Award; and entering
judgment in the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Hassan Turner, et al. v. Charter
Communications, LLC, Case No. 23-16140, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 30, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Hassan Turner Mediation Questionnaire was due on
September 6, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by September 27, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on October 27, 2023;
-- Appellant Hassan Turner opening brief is due on December 6,
2023;
-- Appellee Charter Communications, LLC answering brief is due
on January 5, 2024; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant HASSAN TURNER is represented by:
Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
SODERSTROM LAW PC
1 Park Plaza, Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 667-4700
Defendant-Appellee CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC is represented by:
Joseph Scott Carr, Esq.
KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
515 S. Flower Street, 36th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (404) 213-3987
- and -
Nathan Chapman, Esq.
Joseph W. Ozmer, II, Esq.
Paul G. Sherman, Esq.
KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER, LLP
171 17th Street, NW Suite 1550
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 400-7300
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Final OK Hearing of $53M Settlement Set Oct 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk of Cook County Record reports that about 6,350
former CTA workers, or in some cases, their surviving heirs, could
be in line for payouts worth thousands of dollars apiece, while
their lawyers could collect about $27 million, under an $80 million
settlement to end a class action accusing the transit agency's
pension plan administrators of violating the Illinois state
constitution's pension protection clause for government workers by
making retirees pay for some of their health insurance.
On Oct. 23, a Cook County judge is scheduled to hold a hearing on
whether to grant final approval to the settlement deal.
Cook County Judge Cecelia A. Horan granted preliminary approval to
the deal in May.
Anyone who believes the deal should not be approved has until Sept.
25 to lodge an objection with the court.
The settlement would end the class action lawsuit that has moved
throughout every level of the state courts in the past 12 years,
including a stop at the Illinois Supreme Court.
The case first landed in Cook County Circuit Court in 2011, when
two groups - one, including former CTA workers who retired before
2007 and another including current CTA workers and more recent
retirees - filed suit against the CTA's retirement plan
administrators. The lawsuit claimed the CTA retirement board
violated retirees' rights under both the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) under which they had retired and the Illinois state
constitution by moving to require CTA retirees to pay for a portion
of their health insurance premiums, when previously they did not.
A Cook County judge initially tossed the actions, ruling that their
benefits could still be governed under the terms of a CBA
negotiated by their union, and finding that the state
constitution's pension protection clause should not stop the CTA
from being able to modify retirees' health benefits.
The case landed before the Illinois Supreme Court four years later.
In 2016, the state high court came down heavily in favor of the CTA
retirees. The high court ruled the health benefits should be
protected under the state constitution's language forbidding public
bodies, like the CTA, from altering the terms of public workers'
retirement benefits in ways that would "diminish or impair" those
benefits.
In that decision, the court's majority indicated collective
bargaining could be used to defend benefits changes which may
otherwise conflict with current workers' constitutional pension
rights.
But the high court said retirees who begin to collect benefits
before a CBA is altered hold constitutionally protected "vested"
benefits which cannot be changed by a past employer or retirement
board.
With that decision in hand, the case returned to Cook County court,
where the court refused further attempts by the CTA retirement plan
administrators to dismiss the class action.
In 2020, over the objections of the CTA plan administrators, a Cook
County judge certified a class of plaintiffs that would include all
CTA retirees who were hired before Sept. 5, 2001, and retired
before Jan. 1, 2007.
The court also appointed attorneys from the firm of Robinson Curley
P.C., of Chicago, as class counsel, leading the case on behalf of
the retirees.
According to court documents, those attorneys for the retirees
presented the settlement agreement to the court in early May 2023,
after eight months of settlement negotiations.
Under the deal, the Retirement Plan for Chicago Transit Authority
Employees and the Retiree Health Care Trust agreed to pay $80
million to settle the lawsuit.
The deal would allow the retirees' lawyers to request attorneys'
fees worth one-third of the total settlement funds, or about $26.7
million. The settlement agreement asserted this would compensate
the lawyers for "their work on the case for 15 years."
The lawyers are also requesting $480,000 more to reimburse them for
their costs.
That would leave about $53 million to be divided among the CTA
retirees and the surviving heirs of those who died while the
lawsuits worked through the courts.
Using simple math, retirees could be in line for an average payout
of about $8,000 each. However, the settlement said the actual
payout would be calculated under a plan of distribution contained
in the settlement agreement.
That distribution plan would allow retirees to collect for the
amounts they paid in health insurance premiums under the plan since
2009, as well as lesser sums, if they, at any point, elected not to
pay the premiums, but could have.
Once total claims are collected, actual payments will be weighed
against the $53 million net settlement fund. For instance, if total
claims are worth $90 million, a retiree with a total claim valued
at $25,000 would receive about $14,000 from the net settlement.
According to the settlement, retirees do not need to submit any
documentation to back their claims, as the total will be determined
based on CTA retirement plan records.
The retirees have been represented by attorney C. Philip Curley, of
Robinson Curley PC.
The CTA Retiree Health Care Trust has been represented by attorney
Kathleen A. Erhart, of Smith Gambrel & Russell, of Chicago.
The CTA Employees Retirement Plan has been represented by attorney
Victoria R. Collado, of Burke Warren MacKay & Serritella, of
Chicago. [GN]
COBRA SPECIAL RESPONSE: Golden Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cobra Special
Response Team, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tiara Golden,
Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Cobra Special Response Team, LLC, Joseph Markeal
Daniels, Case No. 2:23-cv-02489-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 9,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Cobra Special Response Team (CSRT) -- https://csrttn.org/ -- offers
top of the line, uniformed, armed and unarmed officers equipped
with level three holsters, body cameras, non lethal weapons, and
city wide radios.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Cordova, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Email: rbryant@jsyc.com
CONVERSE INC: Gutierrez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nora Gutierrez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Converse Inc., Does 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV15583 was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Aug. 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06547-RGK-MAR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Converse -- http://www.converse.com/-- is an American lifestyle
brand that markets, distributes, and licenses footwear, apparel,
and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Betsy Tauler, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 510
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 927-9270
Fax: (310) 943-1455
Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com
bmtauler@taulersmith.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Samuel C. Cortina, Esq.
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
Michael Richard Panek, Esq.
King and Spalding LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Ste 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4355
Fax: (213) 443-4310
Email: scortina@kslaw.com
lkiser@kslaw.com
mpanek@kslaw.com
COOPERFRIEDMAN ELECTRIC: Clark Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN R. CLARK, individually and on behalf of all putative class
members, Plaintiff v. COOPERFRIEDMAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., INC.
D/B/A COOPER POWER SYSTEMS and COOPER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., Jointly
and Severally, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07806 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 1, 2023) arises from the Defendants' untimely wage
payments to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees pursuant to
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to recover from
Defendants the amount of the underpayments caused by their untimely
wage payments, as well as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as
provided for by NYLL.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from December 18, 2018,
until September 30, 2022, as a generator maintenance technician.
CooperFriedman Electric Supply Co., Inc. is an active foreign
corporation incorporated in the State of New Jersey doing business
as "Cooper Power Systems."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
CORECIVIC INC: Bid to Unseal Docs in Barrientos Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et
al., v. CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered an order granting in part and
denying in part motion to unseal.
-- The Plaintiffs may refile the documents with the agreed-upon
narrow redactions. The Plaintiffs shall work with the Clerk to
ensure that the refiled documents are properly linked to their
restricted counterparts.
-- The Plaintiffs contend that CoreCivic hired relatively few
non-detainee employees for these positions and instead used
far
cheaper detainee workers. At first blush, it does not appear
that
such information is sensitive security information.
The Plaintiffs and CoreCivic jointly moved for a protective order
to protect confidential, proprietary, and private information from
public disclosure.
The Court granted the motion and entered the protective order
proposed by the parties.
CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and
detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EDYGMU at no extra charge.[CC]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: COBRA Notice Class Action Settlement Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott Will & Emery of JD Supra reports that recent years have
seen a barrage of class action lawsuits alleging that group health
plan continuation coverage election notices, required under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), are
deficient in one or more respects. The notices provide employees
and their beneficiaries who participate in an employer's group
health plan with the option to elect to continue their coverage
following a COBRA qualifying event (e.g., termination of
employment, reduction in hours, divorce). These class action
lawsuits all claim that the COBRA coverage election notices failed
to include all the information required by the COBRA regulations or
that they deviate in some manner from the model notice provided by
the US Department of Labor (DOL). While these claims may sometimes
seem trivial, courts have been reticent to dispose of them in a
summary manner, e.g., by failing to certify the class. Once a class
is certified, a defendant company faces the prospect of a long and
costly defense.
A class action lawsuit brought against Costco Wholesale Corporation
(Costco) in the US District Court for the Southern District of
Florida illustrates the stakes and provides some valuable lessons.
The putative class includes 38,818 former Costco employees who
received Costco's COBRA notice and elected not to enroll in
continuation coverage.
IN DEPTH
John G. Baja (Baja) received Costco's notice of his option to elect
COBRA continuation coverage after the termination of his
employment. On February 18, 2022, Baja sought approval of a class
action settlement with Costco to resolve claims that Costco's COBRA
coverage election notice failed to meet applicable COBRA
requirements. The settlement would require Costco to pay $750,000.
(This would result in a $9.72 payment to each class member after
attorney fees, costs and settlement administration fees are
deducted from the gross settlement amount.) The settlement, once
approved, will join a long line of settlements brought under the
theory that an employer is liable for statutory and actual damages
if its continuation coverage notice does not strictly adhere to
COBRA's requirements.
Baja's complaint included the following allegations:
Costco's COBRA continuation notice is not "written in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant" in
violation of the applicable COBRA standard.
Costco's COBRA continuation notice contained misleading threats of
potential criminal penalties and omits information that is
otherwise required to be included in a COBRA continuation coverage
notice.
Costco breached its fiduciary duty by failing to provide Baja with
a proper COBRA continuation coverage election notice.
The rule on which Baja relies lists more than a dozen items of
information that a proper COBRA continuation notice must contain.
In order to assist plans to satisfy their COBRA notice obligations,
DOL has issued a model COBRA continuation coverage election notice
(the Model Notice).
BENEFIT-RELATED CLAIMS AND THE CONTENT OF THE COBRA NOTICE
Baja, like the named plaintiffs in other similar cases, asserts
that any employer that fails to include every element required by
the COBRA regulations or that fails to use the Model Notice is
liable for damages of up to $110.00 per participant per day. Costco
sought to dismiss the Baja complaint on the grounds that Baja
lacked standing because he failed to allege causation, i.e., that
any information omitted from Costco's COBRA continuation notice did
not cause Baja any real harm. (The court failed to rule on Costco's
motion before a settlement was reached.) Although Costco's position
holds some appeal, courts have generally declined to dismiss these
sorts of cases before there is an opportunity for the plaintiffs to
engage in discovery. The rationale often advanced is that the
applicable provision of the law says that the notice "shall
contain" the enumerated items. Courts are therefore inclined to
strictly construe the statute.
The question of whether strict adherence to the enumerated elements
of a COBRA continuation notice is required is central to the Baja
case and similar cases. At least one court has expressed
skepticism, saying that a "bare procedural violation of a statute
is not enough to show concrete harm." On the issue relating to the
specificity with which a COBRA continuation notice must identify
the plan administrator, the court sided with Costco. The court
dismissed claims based on allegations that the COBRA continuation
notice did not name the plan administrator.
The Model Notice lends further support for the argument that
good-faith compliance is sufficient to avoid liability for an
allegedly deficient COBRA continuation coverage notice. It does not
contain all the required information. Rather, it omits the
requirement to include an explanation of the consequences of
failing to enroll in COBRA continuation coverage. The Model Notice
also features a preamble referencing a good-faith standard, i.e., "
[DOL] considers use of the model election notice to be good faith
compliance with the election notice content requirements," and it
continues to state, "use of the model notice isn't required."
Nevertheless, plaintiffs have been able to obtain substantial
settlements in these types of cases.
Some recent district court orders have narrowed the issues in COBRA
continuation coverage notice cases. For example, district courts
have stated that the plan administrator does not have to be named
in a COBRA continuation coverage notice if there is another party
responsible for the administration of continuation coverage
benefits. But courts are still permitting claims based on
regulatory allegations that a COBRA continuation notice "is not
written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan
participant," even where the alleged confusion regarding the notice
is based on strict noncompliance with the DOL's regulations and the
Model Notice or accurate statements of law that are not
specifically required.
CLAIMS BASED ON BREACH OF ERISA FIDUCIARY DUTIES
Baja, also like the named plaintiffs in other similar cases, made a
claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA)
fiduciary rules. These rules impose on fiduciaries of ERISA-covered
plans (which usually include the company that sponsors the plan)
the obligation to act "solely in the interest of participants and
beneficiaries, for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to
participants and their beneficiaries." Costco moved to dismiss the
claim because it simply duplicates Baja's other claims for
benefits.
The interaction of the enforcement portions for ERISA benefit
claims and ERISA fiduciary claims has a long and complicated
history. Courts often refuse to allow a plaintiff or class of
plaintiffs to proceed under both provisions for the very reason
urged by Costco, i.e., that the claims are duplicative. Following
this line of reasoning, the court dismissed this breach of
fiduciary duty claim. The court was of the view that the plaintiff
already had an adequate remedy. Most courts seem to agree, ruling
that fiduciary breach claims do not provide an avenue for relief
where a viable damages claim exists.
NEXT STEPS
The lessons are clear: Companies subject to COBRA should pay
attention to their COBRA notices and procedures and encourage their
vendors and service providers to do so as well. These are not
difficult rules with which to comply, the effort is minimal and the
cost of inattention can be very high. [GN]
CROWN CREST: Faces Class Suit Over Door-to-Door Rental Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Abby O'Brien of CP 24 reports that a Toronto CEO and 12 of his
companies are facing a potential class action lawsuit alleging they
held their HVAC rental customers' homeowner titles "hostage" in
exchange for "exorbitant" amounts of money, according to a lawyer
representing the consumers.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Toronto residents Goren Donev and
Alga Bonnick, alleges that Crown Crest Capital Management Corp.,
along with at least 11 other companies run by CEO Lawrence Krimker,
all breached Ontario's Consumer Protection Act by not telling their
rental customers that security interests worth thousands of dollars
had been taken out against their home titles. The suit also claims
that the companies' sales representatives sold the contracts on a
door-to-door basis, a practice banned in Ontario in 2018.
Security interests, which operate similarly to liens, are used as
financial collateral by lenders. In this case, they were used to
secure the value of the companies' heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) units. They're a common practice found within
the home equipment rental industry, but usually, the interests
equal the approximate amount of the equipment.
In this case, the combined amounts leveraged against Donev and
Bonnick's homes exceeded $20,000.
Predatory practices are rampant in the home equipment industry,
according to Mohsen Seddigh with Toronto law firm Sotos Class
Action, and lenders can stand to benefit from placing costly
security interests on titles, as homeowners are often left with
little choice but to fork up the sums, he says.
"They may not even be aware of [the interests]," Seddigh told CTV
News Toronto. "Usually they only find out when they want to sell
their house or get a new mortgage, [. . .] but eventually they have
to come begging to get rid of it."
In a written statement given in June, Crown Crest told CTV News
Toronto it was aware of the claims made against “various
corporations and a senior executive” and that it disputes any
claims made against it.
"We expect it will be dismissed," the statement read. "We practice
transparency and compliance with consumer protection laws and have
processes in place to ensure our customers are satisfied and well
served."
Krimker, who has had at least three charges placed on him under the
Consumer Protection Act for failing to take reasonable care as a
corporation's director, did not respond to repeated requests for
comment beginning in June and as recently as September. When
reached for further information on the charges, a spokesperson for
Ontario's Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery told CTV
News Toronto that information related to investigations is not made
public.
In a statement of defence filed on behalf of Krimker, all
allegations made against the CEO are denied. It notes that, as a
corporate officer, he is a legally separate entity from the
companies and that his role does not see him involved in
"day-to-day operations." The consumers' claim, however, alleges
Krimker was the "directing mind" of the operation, allowing him to
"incorporate multiple companies through which he acts to evade
liability," and is therefore jointly liable.
Lawrence Krimker
The class action is currently awaiting a certification hearing,
Seddigh explained, during which both parties will make first
appearances in front of a judge, who will then decide whether the
case is suited to be prosecuted.
If the claim is certified, and successful its subsequent the trial
phase, existing interests would be taken off consumers' titles and
members of the class would be awarded a collective $5 million in
damages.
THE AGREEMENTS
In the spring of 2015, a salesperson from one of Krimker's
companies came to Donev's "modest bungalow" in Etobicoke, Ont.,
offering him a deal on a new air conditioner, insisting that the
model would help him "save a significant sum" on his hydro bill,
the statement of claim reads.
Donev agreed to the replacement and signed a document with 'Simply
Green Home Services' that the salesperson gave to him the claim
states. The agreement did not include the total amount of money
Donev would later become liable for or any kind of payment
schedule, it continues.
In May, Donev started being charged $80 a month on his Enbridge
Bill, which was later increased to $100 a month, the documents
state. He has reportedly paid these amounts for the past seven
years, totalling approximately $8,000 for an air conditioner - at
no point did a salesperson disclose that the total amount owed
would reach this amount, the lawsuit alleges.
On July 15, Simply Green Home Services registered a $7,269 security
interest on his home title, “without his information or
knowledge,” the documents read.
Bonnick's case is not dissimilar to Dunev's - the 70-year old woman
signed an agreement with MGA Services in July 2017. After years of
disputed charges and attempts at cancellation, a separate company -
Crown Crest Corporation - placed a $14,448 interest on Bonnick's
home title
The Statement of Defence filed by the corporations denies the
allegations against them, arguing that Donev and Bonnick understood
the lease terms before entering into them, and that the leases
disclosed all terms required by law.
'THEIR HOME IS TAKEN HOSTAGE'
The lawsuit alleges that Krimker used his more than a dozen
companies, "as well as [others] that are not currently within the
knowledge of the plaintiff," in his dealings with homeowners.
According to the claim, the companies "commonly and uniformly"
included a clause in the agreement's fine print giving the supplier
the right to register a security interest against the homeowner and
on titles to their houses and to pass off the agreement to any
person at any time, "without the [homeowners] consent or notice to
them," the document alleges. Contracts provided by consumers of
Krimker's company to CTV News Toronto featured both of these
clauses.
The interests barred homeowners from selling, mortgaging or
otherwise dealing with their properties without the suppliers'
consent, or payment of the security interest, the claim states.
At no point did the company inform the homeowners of the total
amount payable, which in some instances was in the tens of
thousands of dollars, Seddigh said.
Seddigh explained that consumers often only became aware of these
interests in the process of selling or remortgaging their homes.
"Essentially, their home is taken hostage for an exorbitant amount
of money," the lawyer said. "Six years later, you want to sell your
house and your lawyer calls and says there's this interest, that
the other side won't close because they won't take the risk."
In such cases, people can feel pressured to produce the sums,
according to Seddigh.
"That's where the person does or pays whatever they have to - the
alternative is to go to court on an urgent basis to remove the
interest, which is generally not a possibility for a lot of
folks."
The issue of door-to-door predatory sales tactics extends past the
allegations against Krimker and his business, Seddigh said, adding
that society's most vulnerable is often the most severely
impacted.
"A majority of the people who are affected by this are senior
citizens, and people who don't speak English are also main
targets," the lawyer explained. "That's why we've filed - to get
some measure of justice for those who can affect it, to prevent
this behavior from happening again in the future."
The allegations against the 13 corporations and Krimker have not
been proven in court. Sotos Class Action expects the action's
certification hearing to take place early next year. [GN]
CRUNCHBASE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 2, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CASAR, et al., v.
CRUNCHBASE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00950-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge James S. Gwin entered an order setting the following
deadlines:
(1) Deadline to Add Parties or Aug. 24, 2023
Amend Pleadings:
(2) Deadline for Filing Class Jan. 2, 2024
Certification:
(3) Deadline for Filing Opposition Jan. 22, 2024
to Class Certification:
(4) Deadline for Filing Replies Jan. 29, 204
to Response:
(5) Deadline for Filing March 18, 2024
Dispositive Motions:
(6) Deadline for Filing Opposition April 1, 2024
to Dispositive Motions:
(7) Deadline for Filing April 8, 2024
Replies to Responses:
(8) Deadline for All Discovery: July 29, 2024
Crunchbase is a company providing business information about
private and public companies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PvROrm at no extra charge.[CC]
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Crowl Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cupertino Electric,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Crowl, and all similarly situated
individuals v. Cupertino Electric, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-04007-VKD
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Cupertino Electric -- https://www.cei.com/ -- is a privately owned
electrical engineering and construction company headquartered in
San Jose, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Green, Esq.
Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
Larkspur, CA 94939
Phone: (415) 477-6700
Fax: (415) 477-6710
Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com
ems@classcounsel.com
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Danna Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cupertino Electric,
Inc. The case is styled as Darron Danna, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Cupertino Electric, Inc., Case No.
5:23-cv-04232-SVK (N.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Cupertino Electric -- http://www.cei.com/-- is a privately owned
electrical engineering and construction company headquartered in
San Jose, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
DANIEL SROURIAN
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Email: daniel@slfla.com
D CARBON LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bejarano Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR ALFREDO BEJARANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v D CARBON LLC (dba LENA Y CARBON
RESTAURANT & LOUNGE); and ANA AYME, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-18613 (D.N.J., Sept. 8, 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 Bejarano was employed by the Defendants as a cook.
D CARBON LLC owns and operates a restaurant located in Paterson,
New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
D.R. HORTON: Faces Class Suit Over Defective and Damaged Houses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Fowler of 7 News wspa.com reports that a massive lawsuit
will go to court in Anderson this week.
The lawsuit involves some residents who live in the Rose Hill
subdivision on Highway 74 and developer D.R. Horton.
The residents claim their homes are defective and have been damaged
by water on multiple occasions.
Residents also said that repairs have not fixed the problem.
D.R. Horton has denied any wrongdoing. [GN]
DUKE CAPITAL: Bid for Scheduling Conference Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH CASTILLO; VICTORIA
SVENSSON; and ROBIN BEAN, On Behalf of Plaintiffs and Class, v.
DUKE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00229-JNP-JCB (D. Utah), the
Hon. Judge Jared C. Bennett entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for initial scheduling conference is
denied without prejudice.
2. Duke Capital's motion for scheduling order is granted in part
and denied in part.
3. Duke Capital shall file a dispositive motion within 14 days
after the Tenth Circuit issues a decision that denies Mr.
McMurray's petition for rehearing.
4. If the Tenth Circuit grants the petition for rehearing en
banc
in McMurray, then this case remains stayed until the Tenth
Circuit issues its decision.
The Plaintiffs initiated the action against Duke Capital on behalf
of themselves and a class of Utah residents in the Third District
Court in Salt Lake County, Utah on March 11, 2020.
The Plaintiffs allege multiple causes of action arising under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well as the Utah Consumer
Sales Practices Act,10 and allege that violations of these laws
resulted in unjust enrichment to Duke Capital.
Duke Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy
Corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45LaBVi at no extra charge.[CC]
EDGIO INC: Assad Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Edgio Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 12, 2023, that the Assad class suit
settlement is subject to the approval of the Delaware Chancery
Court.
On July 18, 2022, a stockholder filed a verified class action
captioned George Assad v. Walter Amaral, Edgio, Inc. et al.; Diane
Botelho v. Walter Amaral, Edgio, Inc. et al. Delaware Chancery
Court (Case No. 2022-0626); Delaware Chancery Court (Case No.
2022-0624).
The class action complaint alleges that the Edgio board of
Directors violated its fiduciary duties in entering into the
stockholders' agreement as part of the Edgecast Acquisition.
The plaintiffs challenge certain provisions of the stockholders’
agreement alleging that the defensive measures in the agreement
create a significant and enduring stockholder block designed to
entrench the board of Directors and protect it from stockholder
activism.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief in the form of an injunction
enjoining the enforcement of the challenged provisions.
Edgio filed a motion to dismiss and the matter was heard on October
12, 2022 in the Delaware Chancery Court.
The Vice Chancellor granted Edgio's motion to dismiss on the
record; however on December 8, 2022, the court requested
supplemental briefing on certain issues raised at oral arguments.
Supplemental briefs and answering briefs were filed in January
2023.
On May 2, 2023, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a memorandum
opinion reversing its order on the record and denying the company's
motion to dismiss.
On May 12, 2023, the parties entered into an interim arrangement to
avoid the costs and burdens of expedited litigation where the
company agreed not to enforce the provisions of the stockholders’
agreement that the plaintiffs challenged in the suit in connection
with the company's 2023 annual meeting.
The parties have executed a binding term sheet with the material
terms of settlement.
The settlement itself would not involve any monetary payment to
class members, but plaintiffs would reserve their right to seek an
award of attorney's fees and expenses.
Under the proposal, the company would agree to revise the
Stockholders Agreement to conform to the following terms: (i)
College Parent LP will be free to vote for any candidates it
chooses for director, subject to the continuing standstill
agreement; (ii) on all matters unrelated to the election of
directors, College Parent LP will vote 25% of its shares to mirror
the vote of the public stockholders and will, at its option, vote
the remaining 75% of its shares either in favor of the board's
recommendation or to mirror the vote of the public stockholders;
and (iii) the transfer restrictions will be amended to effectively
eliminate the restrictions on the "SharkWatch 50" list.
The settlement is subject to approval by the Delaware Chancery
Court.
Edgio, Inc. provides content delivery network services based in
Arizona.
EDGIO INC: Faces Esfandiari Class Suit in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------
Edgio Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A Report for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 12, 2023, that the Company faces the
Esfandiari class suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona.
On April 25, 2023, a stockholder filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona a complaint
captioned Mehran Esfandiari et al. v. Edgio, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00691 (D. Ariz.), against the company, and certain current
and former officers (the "Class Action Complaint").
The Class Action Complaint includes two claims: (1) violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (against all
defendants); and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
(against the individual defendants).
The Class Action Complaint alleges that the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts concerning accounting and internal controls
regarding the company's Open Edge arrangements.
The Class Action Complaint seeks compensatory damages, including
interest thereon, costs and expenses.
Edgio, Inc. provides content delivery network services based in
Arizona.
EL CENTRO DEL BARRIO: Faces 350,000-Record Data Breach Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that El Centro Del Barrio,
dba CentroMed in San Antonio, TX, is facing at least two class
action lawsuits over a June 2023 cyberattack in which hackers
gained access to the personal and protected health information
(PHI) of 350,000 patients.
The attack was detected on June 12, 2023, and the forensic
investigation confirmed unauthorized access to IT systems first
occurred on June 9, 2023. The information accessed in the attack
included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
financial account information, medical record numbers, health
insurance plan member IDs, and claims data. The affected
individuals were notified by mail on August 11, 2023.
CentroMed patients Jasmine Grace and Dawn Leal have each taken
legal action against CentroMed over the impermissible disclosure of
their personal information and allege CentroMed was negligent for
failing to properly secure and safeguard their personally
identifiable information, which is now in the hands of
cybercriminals.
They both claim they face an imminent, ongoing, and substantial
risk of identity theft and fraud and have had to invest
considerable time and money into protecting themselves against the
misuse of their personal information. The lawsuits also take issue
with the length of time it took CentroMed to issue notification
letters to patients. CentroMed took two months to issue
notifications, although this was within the time allowed under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Breach
Notification Rule.
The lawsuits allege the defendant violated HIPAA by failing to
adequately protect their data and allege negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Jasmine Grace's lawsuit was
filed in District Court in San Antonio, and she is represented by
attorney Samantha Holbrook. The lawsuit seeks $1 million in
damages. Dawn Leal's lawsuit was filed in San Antonio federal court
by attorney Joe Kendall and seeks $5 million in damages. [GN]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Bartenev Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dmitry Bartenev, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
7:23-cv-07011-CS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Enforce Subpoena and
Compel.
Equifax Information Services LLC -- http://www.equifax.com/--
provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and
commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Fax: (516) 595-1690
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
EXTRA SPACE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Arias Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ABENJI ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 7:23-cv-07985 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.9, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
Plaintiff Arias was employed by the Defendant as an assistant store
manager.
EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT, INC. operates a storage facilities in
Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
FACEAPP INC: Purchase Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FaceApp, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Chelsea Purchase, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. FaceApp, Inc., FaceApp
Technology Limited, Case No. 3:23-cv-02735-MAB (S.D. Ill., Aug. 8,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
FaceApp -- https://www.faceapp.com/ -- is one of the best mobile
apps for advanced photo editing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Edward Radcliffe, Esq.
CUETO LAW
7110 West Main
Belleville, IL 62223
Phone: (618) 277-1554
Fax: (618) 277-0962
Email: jradcliffe@cuetolaw.com
FAIRWORTH 365: Owusu Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairworth 365, LLC.
The case is styled as Nixon Owusu, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated consumers v. Fairworth 365, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01102-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., Aug. 18, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Fairworth Investments is a Virginia-based, principal buyer of
non-performing residential whole loans from financial institutions
across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
James Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
Kelly Guzzo PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7571
Fax: (703) 591-0167
Email: casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
FARMERS INSURANCE: Graham Files Suit in D. Montana
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance
Exchange, et al. The case is styled as Mark Graham, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance
Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, Case No.
6:23-cv-00053-BMM-KLD (D. Mont., Aug. 9, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Declaratory
Judgement.
Farmers Insurance Exchange -- http://www.farmers.com/-- is one of
the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoffrey C. Angel, Esq.
ANGEL LAW FIRM
803 West Babcock
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: (406) 922-2210
Fax: (406) 922-2211
Email: christianangel@hotmail.com
FCA US: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to March 13, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WILSON, PATRICK
KRENEK, and DONALD AKRIDGE, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC and STELLANTIS N.V., Case
No. 4:22-cv-00447-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L. Mazzant
entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend
Deadlines/modify scheduling order:
Event New
Deadline
Disclosure of expert testimony Dec. 20,
2023
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b)
for all experts in support of
motion for class certification
Disclosure of expert testimony Jan. 31,
2024
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b)
for all experts in opposition to
motion for class certification
Disclosure of expert testimony Feb. 12,
2024
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b)
for all experts to rebut
Defendant's experts (only if
necessary).
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file March 13,
2024
motion for class certification.
Class certification hearing Sept. 20,
2024
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The
Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks
and commercial vans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44HKOfb at no extra charge.[CC]
FIVE STAR: Torres Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Job Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS MOREL TORRES and ROBERTO CARLOS TORRES TORRES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FIVE STAR HOME REPAIR LLC and POOLE CONSTRUCTION,
INC. a/k/a J POOLE GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00575 (E.D.
Va., September 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act and for
misclassification of employees as independent contractors in
violation of Virginia Misclassification Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers from
February to March 2023.
Five Star Home Repair, LLC is a company that specializes in
carpentry, painting, and drywall, with its principal place of
business located at 7312 Belmont Rd., Chesterfield, Virginia.
Poole Construction, Inc. a/k/a J Poole Group, is a construction
company, with its principal place of business located at 6605
Tollbridge Rd., Belton, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES: Dipierro Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angelica Dipierro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC.,
d/b/a TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, a Florida corporation, Case No.
23-CA-013984 was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 17, 2023 and assigned
Case No. 8:23-cv-01864-KKM-UAM.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts four causes of action
against TGH: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract; and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie Singer Brady, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407.649.4000
Facsimile: 407.841.0168
Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
Sarah A. Ballard, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303.861.0600
Facsimile: 303.861.7805
FORD-UAW RETIREMENT: Court Narrows Claims in McGlynn Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS EDWARD MCGLYNN, v.
FORD-UAW RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-12462-LVP-JJCG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda V. Parker entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' partial motion
to dismiss.
-- The Court finds that Count III of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint
must be dismissed as it is properly pursued under Count I.
On October 13, 2022, the Plaintiff McGlynn initiated this lawsuit
due to the denial of service credit under the terms of his
retirement plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).
On January 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
against the Ford-UAW Retirement Plan, Ford Motor Company, and
Ford-UAW-Retirement Plan Board of Administration alleging the
following:
-- violations under the terms of the retirement plan pursuant to
ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. section 1132 (Count I);
-- violations of fiduciary duty requirements under ERISA (Count
II);
-- violations of ERISA's claims procedure requirements (Count
III);
and an individual-based violation of ERISA's requirements to
disclose plan documents upon request (Count IV).
The Plaintiff is a current employee of Ford Motor at the Kentucky
Truck Plant and has been employed for more than 23 years, beginning
around May of 1999.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48cuO7W at no extra charge.[CC]
FULL KEE SEAFOOD: Villegas Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Villegas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FULL KEE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a DONG YUE
SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, FULL HOUSE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a DONG
YUE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, FOO KEE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a DONG
YUE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, and NGOC A TUYEN, and KUEN SAU WONG,
individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-06199-OEM-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17,
2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
From September 2022 to January 2023, Plaintiff was paid $780 per
week in cash. This salary was not inclusive of overtime hours
worked. Rather, Plaintiff was only paid for the first 40 hours that
he worked. From January 2023 to July 2023, Plaintiff was paid $800
per week in cash. This salary was not inclusive of overtime hours
worked. Rather, the Plaintiff was only paid for the first 40 hours
that he worked.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants did not have a time
clock machine for employees to clock in and clock out. Defendants
never provided Plaintiff with a written wage notice in English and
his native language setting forth his regular hourly rate of pay
and corresponding overtime rate of pay. When Plaintiff was paid by
Defendants, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a notation or
any other documentation of all his hours worked during that pay
period or his rate of pay. The Plaintiff was a victim of
Defendants' common policy and practices, which violated his rights
under the FLSA and New York Labor Law by, inter alia, not paying
his wages that he was owed for the hours he worked, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher, busboy, and kitchen
helper.
Dong Ye is an authentic Chinese restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
GARDEN MEDITERRANEAN: Elgharabawi Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FATEN ELGHARABAWI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GARDEN MEDITERRANEAN GRILL, LLC, HEDI B.
JLASSI, individually and RAJA SAAD, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 8:23-cv-01970 (M.D. Fla., September 1, 2023) is an action
brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and to recover
unpaid minimum wages and for breach of contract for failure to pay
agreed upon wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act and Fla. Const.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a server from
approximately December 2022 to March 2023.
The Garden Mediterranean Grill, LLC is a restaurant company
authorized and doing business in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
GERSHMAN INVESTMENT: Settles Richardson Class Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Gershman Investment Corp. agreed to
a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed
to prevent a 2021 data breach that compromised sensitive personal
information.
The settlement benefits individuals identified by Gershman whose
information was compromised in the data breach in September 2021.
The Gershman Investment data breach occurred in September 2021 and
compromised sensitive personal information such as financial
account numbers, Social Security numbers and other identifiers.
Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim Gershman
could have prevented the breach with reasonable cybersecurity
measures.
Gershman Investment Group is the nation's top commercial mortgage
lender.
Gershman hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Gershman Investment settlement, class
members can receive several types of compensation.
Class members can seek up to $350 for ordinary losses such as bank
fees, communication charges, travel expenses and up to four hours
of lost time at a rate of $20 per hour.
Class members can also seek up to $5,000 for extraordinary losses
arising from fraud, identity theft or other misuse of personal
information.
All class members can receive three years of free single-bureau
credit monitoring services, including $1 million in identity theft
protection services.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 3, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Gershman Investment settlement
is scheduled for Nov. 2, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Nov. 2, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals identified by Gershman whose information was
compromised in the data breach in September 2021
Potential Award
$5,300
Proof of Purchase
For ordinary-loss claims: Documentation such as elephone and
cellphone bills, gas receipts, postage receipts, bank account
statements reflecting out-of-pocket expenses, invoices or
statements reflecting payments made for professional
fees/services.
For extraordinary-loss claims: Documentation such as bank or credit
card statements, letters from the IRS or other tax authorities,
letters from state unemployment agencies, police reports.
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
11/02/2023
Case Name
Richardson, et al. v. Gershman Investment Corp., Case No.
22SL-CC03085, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri
Final Hearing
11/02/2023
Settlement Website
GershmanInvestmentDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Gershman Data Breach Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
Penn Center - Post Office, PO Box 58339
Philadelphia, PA19102
866-767-6440
Class Counsel
Gary M Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Lynn A Toops
COHEN & MALAD LLP
Samuel J Strauss
Raina Borrelli
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
Brandon M Wise
Paul A Lesko
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANECONWAY & WISE LLP
Defense Counsel
James F Monagle
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
David W Sobelman
Glennon P Fogarty
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP [GN]
GOODYEAR TIRE: Alves Appeals Privacy Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOE ALVES is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Joe Alves, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-11820-WGY, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for alleged
violation of Massachusetts privacy laws by using Session Replay
Code technology on its website, www.goodyear.com.
On Dec. 16, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge William G. Young on
July 24, 2023.
In sum, the Court ruled that the Defendant's intentional activities
that gave rise to the present complaint undisputedly all took place
outside Massachusetts. Indeed, the only intentional contact between
Goodyear and Massachusetts that is relevant to the claims at issue
is the accessibility of its website in the Bay State. Yet as matter
of law, that is not enough to subject Goodyear to the Court's
personal jurisdiction.
The appellate case is captioned Alves v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company, Case No. 23-1682, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit, filed on August 22, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOE ALVES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
- and -
Carey Alexander, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
230 Park Avenue, Ste. 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
E-mail: calexander@scott−scott.com
- and -
Ethan Samuel Binder, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (646) 650-3007
Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
E-mail: ebinder@scott-scott.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223−6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
- and -
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (920) 915-3328
E-mail: michael.laird@zimmreed.com
- and -
Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
Defendant-Appellee GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY is represented
by:
Mark Melodia, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3200
E-mail: mark.melodia@hklaw.com
- and -
Michael T. Maroney, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
10 St. James Avenue
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 523-2700
Facsimile: (617) 523-6850
E-mail: michael.maroney@hklaw.com
- and -
Sophie Kletzien, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3567
E-mail: sophie.kletzien@hklaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Cabrera Smart Pricing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Google LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Aug. 15, 2023
Order entered in the lawsuit entitled RENE CABRERA, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The action involves a long-running dispute between Google and
advertisers who used its AdWords program. In this dispute,
Plaintiffs Rene Cabrera and RM Cabrera Co., Inc. ("RMC") allege
that Google failed to properly apply Smart Pricing discounts and
failed to limit advertisements to the geographic locations that
advertisers were targeting. As a broad overview, the action
pertains to Google's AdWords program, which allows advertisers to
create and display ads on webpages within Google's advertising
networks. There are two components to those advertising networks:
(1) the "Search Network," which consists of google.com and Google's
partner search websites, and (2) the "Display Network," which
consists of other webpages whose owners partner with Google to
display advertisements.
According to the Plaintiffs, Google is contractually obligated to
Smart Price all clicks. Before an advertiser can join the AdWords
program, it must sign a standard contract that the parties refer to
as the AdWords Agreement. The AdWords Agreement states that charges
are solely based on Google's measurements for the applicable
Program, unless otherwise agreed to in writing. In turn, extrinsic
evidence allegedly shows that Smart Pricing is a "measurement"
within the meaning of that clause.
As the district court noted, Plaintiffs' theory on some clicks was
that they received no Smart Pricing discount at all. For three
other subsets of clicks -- those from mobile applications (AFMA),
those from desktop sites viewed on a mobile device (mGDN), and
those where an advertiser applied the same price on the Display
Network as the Search Network (Search-Bundled), Plaintiffs
acknowledged they were Smart Priced but claimed the discount those
clicks received was not high enough, and proffered a different
"correct multiplier" for each.
The question presented is: Whether the district court erred as a
matter of law by finding predominance based on application of a
substantive rule that prevents Defendant from utilizing a defense
available in an individual action: rebutting Plaintiffs'
contract-interpretation argument based on extrinsic evidence by
arguing that individual class members were not aware of and did not
rely on that evidence.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Edward J. Davila of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, entered an Order on Aug. 15, 2023 denying
Google's motion for summary judgment and motion to strike expert
reports; and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Specifically, Judge Davila
certified the Location Targeting Class and Search Bundled Clicks
Subclass. However, the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
showing that common questions predominate as to the Non-Smart
Priced Clicks, AFMA Clicks, and mGDN Clicks Subclasses, so the
Court declined to certify those subclasses. His denial as to those
three subclasses was without prejudice, but the Plaintiffs may
renew their motion for class certification after addressing the
issues identified.
The appellate case is captioned as Rene Cabrera, et al. v. Google,
LLC, Case No. 23-80077, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 29, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner Google LLC is represented by:
Andrew J. Pincus, Esq.
Daniel E. Jones, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
E-mail: apincus@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Edward D. Johnson, Esq.
Kristin W. Silverman, Esq.
Elspeth V. Hansen, Esq.
Ankur Mandhania, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
Two Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 331-2000
Facsimile: (650) 331-2060
E-mail: wjohnson@mayerbrown.com
GOOGLE LLC: Sued by UK Customers Over Unfair Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that Google faces a new multibillion-pound
lawsuit from UK consumers accusing the company of contributing to
cost-of-living price rises.
The lawsuit, on behalf of every consumer in the UK, says that
Google has stifled competition in the search engine market, which
caused prices to rise across the UK economy.
The lawsuit filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal claims that
Google has broken competition law and raised the cost of living for
every UK consumer.
Google has been accused of shutting out competition in mobile
searches, and using its market dominance to raise the prices paid
by advertisers for their spot on the Google search page, according
to the claim. These are then passed on to consumers.
The class action is funded by Hereford Litigation, a global
commercial litigation funder. Nikki Stopford, co-founder of
Consumer Voice, a consumer rights campaigner and the class
representative in the action, said: "This action aims to redress
the balance - not only by getting people back what they're owed but
also by holding Google to account for its actions."
Estimated compensation of GBP7.3bn has been requested for about 65
million UK users over the age of 16, meaning at least GBP100 per
person on average.
Earlier this year, the US justice department and eight states filed
lawsuits against Google over allegations that the company abused
its dominance of the digital advertising business.
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has also launched
an investigation into whether Google has abused its dominant
position through its conduct in ad tech.
According to the CMA, in 2019, Google paid Apple approximately
GBP1.2bn to ensure default status on Safari in the UK alone.
In the lawsuit, Google is accused of crowding its search pages with
paid advertising - pressuring companies to pay more for "clicks",
rather than depending on consumers finding their sites themselves.
The lawsuit claims that a more competitive search engine would
select ads based more on relevance to the user than the price paid
by the advertiser.
The lawsuit says that commercial agreements between Google and
Apple to ensure Google was the default search engine for the Safari
browser preinstalled with iOS, Apple's iPhone operating system,
contributed to allowing Google to maintain its dominant position on
mobile.
Google Ads generated more than $224bn in revenue in 2022,
accounting for almost 80% of parent company Alphabet's revenue
($283bn in 2022).
Stopford said: "Google has fixed things, sometimes unlawfully, so
it is the default search engine on practically all mobile phones in
the UK. It abused its market dominance to charge advertisers more
than if the market had been competitive - for example, for the
sponsored links you see when you use Google to search for
something. Advertisers have inevitably passed these higher costs on
to shoppers."
Luke Streatfeild, partner at legal firm Hausfeld, who is leading
the litigation, said: "Google provides a great service, but it
isn't free. Instead, this claim says that Google has choked off
competition in search engines for years, to the detriment of the
businesses that use its services - and, ultimately, consumers. The
lack of competition leads to higher prices and poorer quality, and
the effects of this are felt throughout the UK economy."
A Google spokesperson said: "This case is speculative and
opportunistic - we will argue against it vigorously. People use
Google because it is helpful. We only make money if ads are useful
and relevant, as indicated by clicks - at a price that is set by a
real-time auction."
"Advertising plays a crucial role in helping people discover new
businesses, new causes and new products." [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Tentatively Settles Class Suit Over Play Store Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Attarwala of Investopedia reports that Alphabet's Google
has reportedly settled a class action suit that accused it of
overcharging customers through its Play Store in the U.S.
Google had allegedly violated U.S. federal antitrust rules by using
its dominant market position to convince consumers to pay more than
they would have otherwise. The suit, representing 21 million
consumers, was brought by more than 30 U.S. states. The plaintiffs
claimed without Google's influence, they would have had more
options and would have been charged less by apps.
The amount Google will have to pay was not disclosed but may be
revealed in an Oct. 12 hearing. If approved, the settlement will
allow Google to avoid trial.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney wrote in a post on social media platform
X that Epic Games is not a party to the proposed settlement. Epic
and internet company Match Group, which owns Tinder, apparently
plan to proceed with a suit the two filed against Google that has a
trial date in November. Sweeney said Google inflates in-app
transaction prices by 30%, whereas payment processing fees in
competitive markets are 3%.
"If Google is ending its payments monopoly without imposing a
Google Tax on third-party transactions, we'll settle and be
Google's friend in their new era," he said, adding that the company
will fight if the settlement consists of merely paying off
plaintiffs.
In 2021, state attorneys general said Google blocked competition,
forcing developers to use its Play Store to reach users.
Shares of Alphabet were down under 1% in early trading on September
6, 2023 following the news, but have gained more than 52%
year-to-date. [GN]
GREEN BUILDING SUPPLY: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Building
Supply, LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Green Building Supply,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07960 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Green Building Supply -- https://www.greenbuildingsupply.com/ -- is
an e-shop that retails a wide range of building materials,
lightings, cabinets, test kits, and energy monitors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces Class Suit Over Maui Wildfires
-------------------------------------------------------
CNN of NBC - 2 reports that attorneys who filed a proposed
class-action lawsuit against Hawaiian Electric, accusing the
utility company of causing the devastating Lahaina wildfire in
Maui, are asking a judge to let them expand the suit to include
telecommunications companies along with private and public
landowners.
The Hawaiian wildfires, which began on August 8, killed more than
100 people and burned over 2,000 acres in Lahaina, as well as
hundreds of acres in Kula and Olinda on the island of Maui. The
resulting destruction of homes, businesses, infrastructure and loss
of tourism may result in up to $6 billion in economic losses,
according to an estimate from Moody's.
A motion from the plaintiff's attorneys says they want "to bring
similar claims against additional defendants for their own conduct
that caused and/or contributed to the fire."
Currently there are dozens of named plaintiffs, but the law firm of
LippSmith LLP is asking for it to be given class-action status to
cover everyone affected by Lahaina Fire damages.
The original suit claimed Hawaiian Electric was to blame for the
fire, because it did not deenergize power lines that were knocked
down by high winds. Now, plaintiffs say that the cable TV provider
Charter Communications and telephone company Hawaiian Telecom also
contributed to the danger, alleging they "overloaded at least some
of the power poles, destabilizing them," making the wooden poles
more likely to snap.
The amended lawsuit also says some private and public landholders
were negligent for allowing "highly flammable" vegetation on their
properties, contributing to the rapid spread of the fire.
Attorney Graham LippSmith told CNN the proposed new defendants were
added after the legal team got its first opportunity to examine the
damaged power poles that have been stored as evidence. "Our team
has been working around the clock to investigate the cause of the
fire and its explosive spread, " he said. The court would need to
approve adding the additional defendants.
CNN reached out to Charter and Hawaii Telecom for comment. Hawaiian
Electric previously said it does not comment on pending litigation.
None of the named defendants has yet filed a response to the
lawsuit in court.
Hawaiian Electric has said that power lines falling in high winds
seem to have caused a fire during the early morning of August 8,
but power lines in West Maui had been de-energized for more than
six hours by the time a second afternoon fire began in the Lahaina
area.
The company claimed "all lines to Lahaina remained de-energized and
all power in the area remained off" before the fire started in that
area.
Shares of Hawaiian Electric have plunged 67% since the fires
erupted August 8. Charter's stock was unchanged in premarket
trading on September 7, 2023. Hawaiian Telecom is privately owned.
Maui County filed a separate lawsuit late last month against
Hawaiian Electric and its subsidiaries, alleging that the utility
company's negligence caused the devastating wildfires. The lawsuit
alleges that the electric company "inexcusably kept their power
lines energized" in early August, despite the fact that the
National Weather Service issued a High Wind Watch and a Fire
Warning.
Hawaiian Electric CEO Shelee Kimura said in a statement following
Maui's lawsuit that the company believes the complaint is factually
and legally irresponsible."[GN]
HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces 25 Class Suits Over Patients' Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everett Catts of Benefits Pro reports that a plaintiff lawyer who
has filed up to five lawsuits on behalf of clients allegedly harmed
by HCA Healthcare's data breach that impacted millions of patients
said he expects them to be combined into one class-action suit.
In July, HCA, a Nashville-based company providing health care
services to 180 hospitals and about 2,300 ambulatory care sites,
announced in a news release it had experienced a data breach in
which some of its patients' data was "made available by an unknown
and unauthorized party on an online forum."
Soon after, lawsuits were filed on behalf of those patients, with
court documents saying as many as 11 million patients were affected
(the release said HCA has "more than 37 million annual patient
encounters"). Gerard Stranch IV, managing partner with Jennings &
Garvey in Nashville, said he's filed four or five of the over 25
suits that have been filed overall regarding the breach. Most of
the cases have been filed in Tennessee, and one was filed in
California.
"We've got about another half-dozen to dozen [clients considering
filing suit] and have obviously looked at a larger number," Stranch
said. "The 25 cases on file now are all class actions, and the
court in Nashville has already consolidated all the cases in the
[U.S. District Court for the] Middle District of Tennessee into one
docket."
The release stated the patients' data posted online includes their
names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, birthdates,
genders, patient service dates, locations and next appointment
dates, all information that's protected under the federal HIPAA
Privacy Rule. But Stranch wondered if more info was also posted
online.
"My clients are concerned about the data that has been leaked about
them," he said. "They are not comfortable that the data is as
limited as HCA initially represented and look forward to conducting
discovery to determine exactly what was taken."
One lawsuit stated HCA "attempted to downplay the data breach."
"[The company claimed] that no passwords or payment information had
been compromised, and that no "clinical information" had been
leaked—despite the fact that patient treatment location and
appointment data were compromised," the suit said. "The reality,
however, is that the information stolen from HCA is highly valuable
and can be used to cause great harm to Plaintiff and the Class
Members."
In response to voicemail and email messages seeking comment on the
lawsuits, a HCA spokesman provided a link to an update the company
has provided on the data breach
(https://hcahealthcare.com/about/privacy-update.dot) and emailed a
statement regarding both the breach and the lawsuits.
"Our focus now is on our patients and ensuring they have
information about the data security incident and the actions
already underway to take care of them," HCA said in the statement.
"Our commitment to our patients is unwavering and is not affected
by any class-action lawsuits or other legal proceedings. We will
respond to any lawsuits or proceedings, in the appropriate forums
and ordinary course."
With cyberattacks on the rise, HCA is among several health care
companies that have recently suffered data breaches and have faced
lawsuits afterwards. In August a patient filed a lawsuit against
the Chattanooga Heart Institute in Hamilton County State Court,
claiming its March data breach impacted 170,450 individuals.
In July, Law.com's Maria Dinzeo reported that last year the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found a former
biopharmaceutical company employee had standing to bring a
negligence class action against her old employer after a hacking
group accessed its servers through a phishing attack in 2020,
stealing a raft of personal information that the group later posted
to the dark web.
Also in July, Law.com's Michael Mora reported on the trend of
data-breach class actions rising in federal courts nationwide in
the previous year.
For example, Milberg Coleman filed a data breach class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
health care revenue cycle company Intellihartx LLC.
The firm had sued the health care company over its alleged failure
to implement adequate data security measures stemming from a
February breach of approximately 489,000 class members. And the
plaintiff attorneys argued in the complaint that the defendant
should have prevented the data breach.
That suit also said that data breaches "targeting health care
entities that collect and store private information" have become
"so notorious" that the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service "have
issued a warning to potential targets so they are aware of, and
prepared for, a potential attack." [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Franz Suit Over Defective 2023 Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges several 2023 model year Hyundai vehicles recalled
last month are equipped with an oil pump controller that can short
circuit and overheat, creating a "massive fire risk."
The 25-page lawsuit was filed in the wake of an August 2023 recall
of nearly 92,000 Hyundai and Kia vehicles in the United States due
to the apparent oil pump defect. The complaint emphasizes that the
alleged defect is likely to cause an affected vehicle's engine oil
pump to overheat, posing a significant safety hazard given the
pump's proximity to combustible oil.
"The defective oil-pump system inside the Class Vehicles [listed
below] malfunctions within the first two years of its lifespan,"
the suit says, "whereas the expected lifespan of oil pumps is often
as long as the lifespan of the car itself."
The plaintiff, a Gaffney, South Carolina consumer, calls Hyundai's
latest recall "no more than a repeatedly ineffective waste of time,
because there is no true fix for the Oil Pump Defect." The consumer
says he was never informed of the recall by anyone affiliated with
Hyundai and instead heard about the oil pump defect through social
media.
"Unless Defendant issues a more comprehensive recall to fix the
root cause of the Oil Pump Defect, it is foreseeable, and should be
expected, that the Class Vehicles' oil-circulation systems will
fail once again," the case contests.
The Hyundai vehicle models mentioned in the lawsuit are the:
2023-2024 Hyundai Palisade;
2023 Hyundai Tucson;
2023 Hyundai Sonata;
2023 Hyundai Elantra; and
2023 Hyundai Kona.
According to media reports, the automakers said the electronic oil
pump controllers for affected vehicles' Idle Stop & Go pump
assembly may contain damaged electrical components that could cause
overheating. The Idle Stop & Go system is intended to shut down the
engine whenever a driver comes to a stop, then start it up again
when the driver lifts their foot off the brake.
Per CNN, Hyundai said it is aware of at least four "thermal
incidents" related to the alleged defect, and drivers are advised
to watch for smoking coming from underneath their vehicle or
burning or melting odors.
Hyundai drivers will reportedly be notified of the issue in late
September, and dealers will inspect and replace drivers' electric
oil pump controllers as needed, CNN said.
The proposed class action says that although the Hyundai oil pump
recall includes free fixes and repairs, the repairs "will cost
Plaintiff hours of his time" as they can take anywhere from four to
eight hours to complete, the case relays.
Further, the filing asserts that the recall does not offer any
reasonable guarantee that the oil pump issue will be permanently
fixed.
"Rather, the Recall mentions installing a new oil pump, but
mentions no testing or assurances that the new oil pump will solve
the issue fully," the case reads.
The recall notwithstanding, the plaintiff has been left with a
vehicle that has been "devalued" as a result of Hyundai's allegedly
negligent oil pump design "because the value of a car with a known
history of faulty oil pumps is worth much less than a car with
properly working oil pumps[.]"
"In all, Defendant's Recall leaves more questions than answers
regarding the Class Vehicles' safety and oil-circulation system,"
the suit says.
The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who
bought or leased any of the Hyundai vehicles listed on this page.
[GN]
JACKSON NATIONAL: Heinz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HEINZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00925 (W.D. Mich., September 1, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
Jackson customers' sensitive information, including full names,
dates of birth, and Social Security numbers.
On May 31, 2023, the Defendant learned that one its IT vendor's
networks, Pension Benefit Information, LLC, had been penetrated by
a cyberattack. In response, PBI "promptly launched an investigation
into the nature and scope of the" data breach. As a result of its
investigation, PBI concluded an undisclosed date that the third
party accessed one of Defendant's servers on May 29, 2023 and May
30, 2023 and downloaded data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members personally identifiable
information (PII) -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this
highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and their utter failure to protect customers' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities
of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to
victims of the data breach will remain for their respective
lifetimes, says the suit.
Jackson National Life Insurance Company is an insurance company
based in Lansing, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Roman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC. is taking an appeal from a
court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit
entitled Gloria Roman, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jan-Pro Franchising
International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the Defendant for wage-and-hour
violations.
On Aug. 10, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge William Alsup on Aug. 21, 2023. The Court held that the
district court properly found that the Defendant has acted
inconsistently with its right to compel arbitration. Hence, the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is denied.
The appellate case is captioned Gloria Roman, et al. v. Jan-Pro
Franchising International, Inc., Case No. 23-16111, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 22,
2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. Mediation
Questionnaire was due on August 29, 2023;
-- Appellant Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. opening
brief is due on November 29, 2023;
-- Appellees Juan Aguilar, Gloria Roman and Gerardo Vazquez
answering brief is due on December 29, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees GLORIA ROMAN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Defendant-Appellant JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC. is
represented by:
Norman M. Leon, Esq.
DLA PIPER, LLP (US)
444 W. Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 368-2192
- and -
Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 677-3104
- and -
Jeffrey Mark Rosin, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER, PLLC
111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 719
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 843-6801
JOHNSON, TN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sexual Assault
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Keeling of wjhl.com reports that attorneys in an alleged
sexual assault-based civil suit against Johnson City, its police
department and several officers want to broaden their complaint to
a class action that would include at least two classes and lead to
an expansion beyond the current nine plaintiffs.
An amended complaint filed on September 8, 2023, which still
requires a judge's approval, also introduces a 10th plaintiff --
the first one who claims to be a victim of someone other than
former downtown businessman and alleged serial rapist Sean
Williams.
"Jane Doe 10" lives in a neighboring state and was allegedly
sexually assaulted in November 2021, when she was 17, while on a
visit to family friends in Johnson City.
Jane Doe 10's mother learned Aug. 25 about allegations that the
Johnson City Police Department (JCPD) had mishandled sexual assault
cases. That's when she saw on Fox News's website a News Channel 11
exclusive story about North Carolina polices' discovery of images
allegedly showing Williams sexually assaulting more than 50
different women in his downtown Johnson City apartment.
Jane Doe 10 would join alleged Williams victims Jane Does 2, 5 and
7 in a so-called “reporter survivor class,” constituting "All
women, including minors, who reported sexual abuse or trafficking
by any person to JCPD from January 1, 2018, to April 25, 2023," the
amendment reads. Those four all have police reports or
investigations linked to their cases, though no charges were ever
filed in any of them.
Williams was arrested in Cullowhee, N.C. April 29 when officers
allegedly discovered more than three-fourths of a pound each of
cocaine and methamphetamine in his car. The arrest came nearly two
years after JCPD officers unsuccessfully tried to serve a federal
warrant on him at his downtown apartment.
He has been jailed since and was transferred to federal custody the
first week of May and faces a Nov. 2 federal trial on ammunition
and attempted escape charges.
The other class listed in September 8, 2023's amended complaint --
the "conspiracy survivor class" -- includes anyone "sexually
abused, drugged, or trafficked by Sean Williams" or by an alleged
accomplice named in the suit.
The conspiracy reference is to an alleged conspiracy in which
certain JCPD officers allowed Williams to allegedly drug and rape
dozens of women in his downtown apartment in exchange for
"financial benefits." Those allegations are outlined in an earlier
amendment to the suit, filed a week ago.
The proposed class action, if approved, will bring a third law
group into the plaintiffs' complaint. They're currently represented
by Vanessa Baehr-Jones of Oakland, Calif-based Advocates for
Survivors of Abuse and three attorneys from Brentwood-based HMC
Civil Rights Law. The class action attorney requesting admission to
the case is Elizabeth Kramer of San Francisco-based Erickson Kramer
Osborne, which specializes in sexual abuse and
cryptocurrency-related class action suits.
The amended complaint is the second filed within two weeks. The
initial suit was filed June 21, 2023 and names the city, JCPD, and
three officers individually -- chief Karl Turner and captain Kevin
Peters, now retired, and investigator Toma Sparks. The first
amended complaint adds investigator Justin Jenkins.
It alleges multiple constitutional violations and failure by the
city to adequately train and supervise. Johnson City has filed an
answer to the initial complaint and denied all the allegations.
Jane Doe 10 family: groping case inadequately investigated
The latest entrant to the case cites many of the same claims about
inadequate policing and investigating that are claimed by the
alleged Williams victims. Among them are alleged failure to collect
an important piece of evidence, failure to interview the suspect
and bringing up Jane Doe 10's past as a possible impediment to
successful prosecution.
Jane Doe 10 was on a trip to Johnson City for Thanksgiving week in
2021, where she planned to care for a girl she regularly babysat
and spend the holiday with the girl's family, who was friends with
her family.
The suit claims that at a point during the visit, Jane Doe 10 was
with the young girl, the girl's grandfather, and his son-in-law
along with four other children.
At a certain point the younger man approached Jane Doe 10 when she
was alone in the kitchen and allegedly groped her for several
minutes through her clothing after she initially "froze in shock,"
the complaint says.
Jane Doe 10 called her older sister and parents the next morning,
and her parents told her to report the incident to the alleged
perpetrator's parents-in-law.
"After hearing Jane Doe 10's account, (the father-in-law) told Jane
Doe 10 that this explained a text message he had received that
morning from (the alleged perpetrator) which stated that something
might have happened the night before with Jane Doe 10," the suit
states.
Jane Doe 10's mother called a rape crisis center in their home
state, which told her they would call Tennessee’s Department of
Children’s Services and report the incident.
On Dec. 10, a JCPD investigator, Kara Lowe, called Jane Doe 10's
mother saying she'd received a report about the girl's alleged
sexual battery and would be investigating. The lawsuit says Jane
Doe 10 underwent a forensic interview in her hometown and that
recording was sent to JCPD.
Jane Doe 10's parents claim to have checked back about a month
later having not heard anything from JCPD and asked whether Lowe
had received the interview. Several weeks after that, Lowe
allegedly told them she didn't expect the First Judicial District
Attorney's Office would pursue charges.
Lowe allegedly cited "several reasons, none of which appeared to
Jane Doe 10's parents to be proper reasons to close the case." The
purported reasons included Jane Doe 10's mental health from having
survived a previous rape, as well as the alleged perpetrator having
hired "an expensive, high powered defense attorney … who was
arguing that Jane Doe 10 lacked credibility based on her past."
Lowe allegedly said the DA "did not want to put Jane Doe 10 through
the difficult process of testifying," the suit says.
"Jane Doe 10's parents insisted, however, that it was not
appropriate to close the case," the suit reads. "This case was
important both for their daughter and because (the man) was in a
position of authority around children." (He had been the dean of a
school Jane Doe 10 attended prior to moving to Johnson City.)
The parents pressed Lowe despite other reasons she stated for
closing the case, the suit says. After Lowe told them she would
call back if the DA decided to pursue charges, they never heard
back despite leaving "voicemails for Investigator Lowe imploring
her to use criminal process to obtain the text message and to
continue to investigate their daughter's case."
No charges have been filed in the case, and the suit claims the
alleged perpetrator is now a pastor at a church.
The second amended complaint, like the earlier amendment, leans
heavily on recent information that has come to light.
Primarily, that includes the Daigle Law Group (DLG) report
commissioned by the city and released July 18, as well as the News
Channel 11 story about the videos and photos allegedly found in
Williams' possession when he was arrested.
On September 8, 2023's complaint alleges that Jane Doe 10 and
"other members of the Reporter Survivor Class who were not victims
of Williams" may have been "devastated, confused, and shocked by
JCPD's failure to properly investigate their cases," but wouldn't
have suspected "this conduct was part of a pattern and practice of
discriminatory conduct towards female victims of sexual violence"
prior to the Daigle report.
It also cites press coverage, including recent national coverage of
the Williams-related cases, as another avenue through which
potential victims may learn about the issue.
Finally, the motion says since the June filing, "additional
survivors have come forward and expressed a desire to be involved
in the lawsuit as either a class representative, or as unnamed
class members."
The plaintiffs' attorneys also request an option to modify the
classes, including expanding the time period eligible for
plaintiffs to earlier than 2018 and to creating additional
"subclasses" to the suit.
News Channel 11 requested comment from the City of Johnson City
after the motion to amend was filed on September 8, 2023 afternoon
and was awaiting a statement at the time of publication. [GN]
JOINT CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alspach Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ALSPACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE JOINT CORP., Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-02018-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Sept. 8, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
JOINT CORPORATION CO. LTD. operates as a real estate developer. The
Company develops and sells condominiums, office buildings, and
commercial facilities. Joint Corporation also offers real estate
management, leasing, and other related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
Direct: (305) 975-3320
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Krefting Suit Transferred to D. Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Krefting, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kaye-Smith Enterprises, Inc., and
Boeing Employees’ Credit Union, Case No. 2:23-cv-00220 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon on Aug. 9, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01164-AR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.
Kaye-Smith -- https://kayesmith.com/ -- is a leading Northwest
marketing execution and supply chain company, serving corporate
clients across a wide range of industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Ste 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Phone: (405) 389-4989
- and -
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Timothy W Emery, Esq.
EMERY REDDY PLLC
600 Stewart St, Ste 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 442-9106
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 93120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy J. Repass, Esq.
Timothy D Shea, Esq.
WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP
801 Kirkland Avenue, Ste 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
Phone: (206) 204-6802
Fax: (206) 299-0400
Email: trepass@wshblaw.com
tshea@wshblaw.com
- and -
Kellan W. Byrne, Esq.
LEE SMART PS INC.
701 Pike St, Ste 1800 One Convention Pl
Seattle, WA 98101-3929
Phone: (206) 624-7990
Fax: (206) 624-5944
- and -
Jesse Lee Taylor, Esq.
Christopher T. Wion, Esq.
SUMMIT LAW GROUP
315 5th Ave S, Ste 1000
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (208) 946-6586
Fax: (206) 676-7001
- and -
Marcus A Christian, Esq.
Amber Thomson, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 263-3731
Email: mchristian@mayerbrown.com
athomson@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Kampars, Esq.
WILDWOOD LAW GROUP LLC
3519 NE 15th Avenue, #362
Portland, OR 97212
Phone: (503) 564-3049
Fax: (971) 347-1425
Email: nick.kampars@wildwoodlaw.com
KESEF LLC: Faces Duran Suit Over Butchers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO DURAN, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. KESEF, LLC, d/b/a SOHO ASIAN BAR & GRILL
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-23358 (S.D. Fla., September 1, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant to recover monetary damages
for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a full-time,
non-exempted hourly butcher from approximately October 15, 2020, to
February 28, 2023, or 124 weeks. He asserts that Defendant
willfully failed to pay him overtime hours at the rate of time and
one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess
of 40.
Kesef, LLC, d/b/a Soho Asian Bar & Grill, is a contemporary kosher
restaurant specializing in Asian and Israeli dishes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Agrees to Settle CPAP Suit for $615-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Philips, the parent company of Philips Respironics, has
settled a class action lawsuit over its recall of some of its sleep
and respiratory devices for an estimated $615 million.
The settlement agreement was expected to be submitted to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 7, 2023, and was in response to multi-district
litigation, which is a federal class action suit. The company said
the agreement "does not include or constitute any admission of
liability, wrongdoing or fault by any of the Philips parties."
In June of 2021, Philips voluntarily recalled about 11 million CPAP
and BiPAP devices and ventilators in the United States after
reports that the polyester-based polyurethane ("PE-PUR") foam used
to dampen sound in the devices could break down and off-gas
volatile organic compounds.
The lawsuit claimed Philips knew about issues with the PE-PUR foam
as early as 2008 due to customer complaints, and that in 2015, the
company received test reports and data "confirming that the
Recalled Devices pose serious, indeed life-threatening, health
risks to users, but Philips failed to timely disclose that they
were defective when manufactured and sold," the suit reads.
Under the settlement, those who bought recalled CPAPs and
ventilators are eligible for cash payments, extended warranties on
replacement devices and an additional cash award if they return the
recalled device to Philips Respironics. Some customers who bought
replacement devices after the recall may get additional
compensation.
The Dutch-based company said it has recorded a provision for 575
million Euros in the first quarter of 2023 to cover the estimated
cost of the settlement -- that works out to $615.6 million under
current exchange rates -- although the final cost may vary based on
legal fees and how many patients participate. Patient payments are
not expected to begin until the first quarter of 2024 at the
earliest.
The agreement doesn't settle any personal injury or medical
monitoring claims in the suit; Philips has moved to dismiss those.
More details of the settlement as it affects patients will be
available at respironicscpap-elsettlement.com. At this time,
patients and sleep labs in the U.S. that are eligible for benefits
don't need to take any action to participate. The settlement still
requires court approval.
The following devices are included in the recall settlement:
C-series S/T, AVAPS (C-series and C-series HT)
DreamStation ASV
DreamStation BiPAP
DreamStation CPAP
DreamStation Go
DreamStation ST, AVAPS
E30
OmniLab Advanced Plus
System One 50 Series ASV4 (Auto SV4)
System One 50 Series Base
System One 50 Series BiPAP
System One 60 Series ASV4 (Auto SV4)
System One 60 Series Base
System One 60 Series BiPAP
Trilogy 100/200, Garbin Plus, Aeris LiveVent
V30 auto [GN]
KONTOOR BRANDS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kontoor Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Kontoor Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07966 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kontoor Brands -- https://www.kontoorbrands.com/ -- is a global
lifestyle apparel company, with a brand portfolio that includes
Wrangler and Lee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LDS CHURCH: Gaddy Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------
LAURA A. GADDY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their second amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled
Laura A. Gaddy, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Corporation of the President
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00554-RJS, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action lawsuit against the
Defendants asserting numerous fraud-related claims. The Plaintiffs
generally allege the Church has intentionally misrepresented its
founding to induce the faith of its members, even as its leaders
hold no sincere religious belief in the versions of events they
promote. Based on these alleged misrepresentations, Gaddy brought
six causes of action on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated: (1) common law fraud, (2) fraudulent inducement, (3)
fraudulent concealment, (4) civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c)), (5) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and (6) breach of fiduciary
duty.
On October 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which duplicates many of the claims, theories, and
allegations from the prior pleadings. The Plaintiffs again bring
claims for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment,
violations of Utah Charitable Solicitations Act (UCSA) and civil
RICO, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Second
Amended Complaint also advances two new causes of action:
fraudulent nondisclosure and constructive fraud based on breach of
promises of future performance.
On Nov. 12, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Robert J.
Shelby on Mar. 28, 2023. The Second Amended Complaint was dismissed
with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
On Apr. 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the order
as well as a memorandum in support of their motion, which the Court
denied through an Order entered by Judge Shelby on July 26, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Gaddy, et al. v. Corp. of the
President of the Church of Jesus, et al., Case No. 23-4110, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on
August 23, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Laura A. Gaddy, Leanne R. Harris and Lyle D. Small docketing
statement, transcript order form, and notice of appearance were due
September 6, 2023; and
-- The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints notice of appearance and R26 disclosure
statement were due September 6, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LAURA A. GADDY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kay Burningham, Esq.
KAY BURNINGHAM LAW OFFICE
299 South Main, Suite 1375
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (888) 234-3706
Defendants-Appellees THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH
OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, et al. are represented by:
Wesley Harward, Esq.
David J. Jordan, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER
95 South State Street, Suite 2500
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 401-8900
LENNYS SHOE & APPAREL: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lennys Shoe &
Apparel, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Lennys Shoe & Apparel,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07969 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lenny's Shoe & Apparel -- https://lennyshoe.com/ -- is an online
shoe and apparel store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LESLIE'S INC: West Palm Sues Over 47% Drop of Common Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
WEST PALM BEACH POLICE PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LESLIE'S, INC., MICHAEL
R. EGECK, and STEVEN M. WEDDELL, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01887-SMB (D. Ariz., September 8, 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 Leslie's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Leslie's common stock at
artificially inflated prices between February 5, 2021, and July 13,
2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's growth was caused by customers over purchasing products
to stockpile in case of a chemical shortage; (2) such sales
inflated revenues and earnings and were not indicative of durable
and sustainable demand or financial growth; (3) the Company took
advantage of chemical shortages by urging customers to stock up on
the products because Leslie's could not "guarantee availability" of
chemicals in the future; and (4) any slowdown in sales was not a
normalization of past seasonality, but was due to the prior excess
stockpiling. As a result, the Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's financial guidance, business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit.
When the truth emerged, the price of Leslie's stock allegedly
dropped $2.82 per share, or more than 29 percent, from a closing
price of $9.52 per share on the prior trading day of July 13, 2023,
down to a closing price of $6.70 per share on July 14, 2023.
Leslie's stock price continued to fall another $1.24 per share the
following trading day, or over 18 percent, closing at $5.46 per
share on July 17, 2023.
West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund is a public pension fund based
in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Leslie's, Inc. is a provider of pool supplies and related
equipment, with its principal executive offices located in Phoenix,
Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Marco A. Duenas, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, Suite 882
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
E-mail: mduenas@saxenawhite.com
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Janes Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Chad Janes, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated and all Aggrieved Employees v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CMCV01202
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Sept. 8, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 5:23-cv-01836.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against
Lowe's: Failure to Pay Regular and Overtime Wages; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to
Pay Wages; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Keep and Provide
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Unfair Business Practices; and
Violation of the PAGA.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: 949.451.3800
Facsimile: 949.451.4220
Email: MMaryott@gibsondunn.com
KMagallanes@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Email: KSmith@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94105-0921
Phone: 415.393.8200
Facsimile: 415.393.8306
Email: JRose@gibsondunn.com
LUCKYPET INC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luckypet, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Luckypet, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07961
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
LuckyPet, Inc. -- https://www.luckypet.com/ -- has been in the
business of making pet owners happy by providing high-quality
customized pet products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
MADISON REED: Faces Class Suit Over Spam Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Madison Reed, Inc.
faces a proposed class action filed by a consumer who claims to
have received numerous unsolicited text messages from the hair care
products company despite having never provided consent to be
contacted.
The 13-page lawsuit says that the defendant ran afoul of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) -- a federal law that aims
to protect individuals from unwanted telemarketing calls and texts
-- when it sent promotional messages to the plaintiff, an Illinois
resident whose phone number has been listed on the National Do Not
Call Registry since February 2007.
As the suit tells it, Madison Reed began "bombarding" the plaintiff
with unsolicited texts advertising its products in November 2021.
The woman claims that despite replying "STOP" to opt out of further
messaging, she received another unwanted promotional text the same
day.
The case alleges that in violation of the TCPA, the defendant does
not have a written policy in place for maintaining an internal
do-not-call list and fails to train its telemarketing personnel in
the use of such a list.
The complaint contends that Madison Reed's unsolicited texts have
caused the "invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals."
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who,
since August 29, 2019, received a text message from Madison Reed on
their cell phone after opting out of receiving future messages. The
case also seeks to cover anyone who, since that date, received more
than one promotional text message from the company within a
12-month period when their telephone number had been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, and from
whom the defendant did not obtain prior written consent, or it
obtained prior written consent in the same manner as it claims to
have supposedly done so in order to contact the plaintiff. [GN]
MAGNA MODULAR: Faces Rupert Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
GERALDINE RUPERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAGNA MODULAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12289-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., September 7,
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 has been employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly employee from approximately 2019 through the present.
Magna Modular Systems, Inc., is a manufacturer of motor vehicle
parts and accessories, headquartered in Warren, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
MAJESTIC ASSOCIATES: Ubri Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Porters
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO UBRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAJESTIC ASSOCIATES LLC, and JOSHUA BALSAM,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07954 (S.D.N.Y., September 8, 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 pay
timely wages, failure to furnish proper wage statements, and
failure to furnish proper wage notice.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a porter/maintenance
worker from approximately November 2017 to August 2022.
Majestic Associates LLC is a building services/management company,
with its principal place of business located at 900 Lydig Avenue,
Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
MAJOR ENERGY: Foote Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------
DEBRA FOOTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAJOR ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00414-TSM (D.N.H., September 1, 2023) seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant Major
Energy in negligently and/or willfully using prerecorded messages
to call Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, without her express
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants engage in unsolicited
prerecorded calls without requisite express written consent.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Major Energy Services LLC operates as an energy service company in
the deregulated natural gas and electric markets in multiple states
in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
V. Richards Ward, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF V. RICHARDS WARD, JR., PLLC
The Reade Building
98 Center Street P.O. Box 1117
Wolfeboro, NH 03894
Telephone: (603) 569-9222
E-mail: Rick@VRWardLaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
MARATHON REFINING: Bid to Trim Claims Wage Class Action Ok'd
------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that a refinery in Los
Angeles convinced a federal judge to trim some claims in a lawsuit
alleging employees aren't but should be paid for their reporting
time before shifts start and the travel time it takes to get to
their workstations.
The proposed class action from one current and one retired employee
alleges Marathon Refining and Logistics Services LLC requires
operators to be ready to get a call up to an hour and a half in
advance of a shift. If they get a call, they have to report to the
refinery within the next three and a half hours. [GN]
MAYOR TRANSPORTATION: Edwards Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAYOR TRANSPORTATION, LLC, AZA SOLIMAN, JOHN
DOES 1 through 10, and ABC CO. 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-14376 (D.N.J., September 1, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law Violations, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law Violation, and
the Conscientious Employment Protection Act.
The Plaintiff asserts the Defendants' failure to pay required
minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due, and retaliatory
conduct against her for complaining about her unpaid wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a "bus aide," also
known as a "bus helper" from September 2016 until she was fired by
Defendants on March 26, 2023.
Mayor Transportation, LLC provides school bus service in Newark,
New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Andrykovitz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS H. ANDRYKOVITZ, P.C.
260 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-8999
MEMORIAL HEART: Cahill Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memorial Heart
Institute, LLC. The case is styled as Stephen Cahill, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Memorial Heart
Institute, LLC doing business as: The Chattanooga Heart Institute,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00168-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn., Aug. 7, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Recovery Medicare.
Memorial Heart Institute, LLC doing business as The Chattanooga
Heart Institute (CHI) -- https://www.chattanoogaheart.com/ -- is a
leading provider of compassionate, high-quality health care
throughout Tennessee and Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq.
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Lisa Anne White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
gmason@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
META PLATFORMS: 17M Users to Get Settlement Payment in Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alix Martichoux of The Hill reports that the number of claims filed
in the $725 million Facebook privacy settlement may constitute the
largest class in a lawsuit in U.S. history, lawyers said in a San
Francisco court on September 7, 2023.
The administrator in charge of vetting claims has received more
than 28 million applications for a payment, said Lesley Weaver,
co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the case.
"As far as we can tell that's the largest number of claims ever
filed in a class action in the United States," Weaver said.
Of the 28 million filed, about 17 million have been preliminarily
validated, meaning at least 17 million people will be getting a
piece of the massive settlement if and when it's given final
approval.
About 2 million claims were duplicates, 8 million were flagged as
potentially fraudulent, and there were still about 1 million left
to review, the lawyers explained.
Once the total number of eligible people is finalized, we'll know
how many people will be sharing the $725 million settlement – but
first there are some deductions.
The lawyers in the case are requesting about $180 million in
attorneys' fees. That chops down the settlement fund to $545
million.
The next major deduction are administrative fees. Essentially, an
administrator is appointed by the court to set up the settlement
website, look at claimants' information, verify they're eligible,
and send them what they’re due. At this point, it's not clear how
much the administrator is charging.
The pot shrinks by another $120,000 because each of the eight
plaintiffs who represented all Facebook users in the case is
entitled to $15,000.
Once all that happens, the final pot of money will be divvied up
between the 17 million or more eligible recipients – but not
equally. Those who had a Facebook period for longer will get a
larger sum. That makes predicting the exact amount you'll receive
difficult to do in advance, but class counsel estimated a median
payment size of $30 when speaking in court on September 7, 2023.
Judge Vince Chhabria gave the lawyers representing the plaintiffs
another week to file some additional documents with the court. Once
the judge gives the settlement final approval, we'll be one step
closer to payments being sent out. However, there could be appeals,
which would delay payments.
Facebook parent company Meta agreed to pay the sum to settle claims
it allowed people's personal data to be shared with third parties.
The most famous third party to get access was Cambridge Analytica,
a consulting firm that supported Donald Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign.
Meta agreed to the payout, but denies any wrongdoing. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Medical Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that a U.S. federal judge said
Meta Platforms (META.O) must face a lawsuit claiming that it
violated the medical privacy of patients who were treated by
hospitals and other healthcare providers that used its Meta Pixel
tracking tool.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco said the
plaintiffs could pursue claims that Meta violated a federal wiretap
law and a California privacy law, and violated its own contractual
promises governing user privacy on Facebook.
In a 26-page decision on September 7, 2023, the judge said the
case, based on the evidence so far, "does not negate the plausible
allegations that sensitive healthcare information is intentionally
captured and transmitted to Meta."
Orrick dismissed some other claims but said the plaintiffs, all
using John Doe or Jane Doe pseudonyms, could try to replead them.
According to the plaintiffs, Meta Pixel provided sensitive
information about their health to Meta when they logged into
patient portals, where the tracking tool had been installed,
enabling Meta to make money from targeted advertising.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for all Facebook users whose
health information was obtained by Meta.
Neither Meta nor lawyers for the Menlo Park, California-based
company responded on September 8, 2023 to requests for immediate
comment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to
similar requests.
When the litigation began in June 2020, lawyers for one plaintiff
said they had found at least 664 hospitals and other healthcare
providers that used Meta Pixel.
In seeking a dismissal, Meta said it "does not disagree" that
sending sensitive health information could be a serious problem.
But it also said there was nothing inherently harmful or unlawful
about its technology, and that it was up to the healthcare
providers to decide how to use Meta Pixel.
Orrick, however, said it was not clear whether Meta did enough to
stop the transmission of patient details, or might be excused
because healthcare providers actually consented to it.
He also found "detailed and plausible allegations" that
transmitting such information was necessary for Meta's advertising
services.
The case is In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-03580. [GN]
METLIFE GROUP: Knudsen Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARLA KNUDSEN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Marla Knudsen, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MetLife Group Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2-23-cv-00426, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this complaint pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, ("ERISA"), against the Defendant, the fiduciary of
the Plan, who violated ERISA by diverting tens of millions in drug
rebates from the Plan to itself.
On Mar. 24, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which
the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge William J.
Martini on July 18, 2023. Judge Martini held that the Plaintiffs do
not have a concrete stake in the outcome of this lawsuit and have
not pled facts to demonstrate an individualized injury. As each of
Plaintiffs' claims for equitable and monetary relief have the same
factual predicate and alleged injury, the Plaintiffs do not have
standing for any of their claims. Accordingly, the Defendants'
12(b)(l) motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing was
granted. The Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice.
The Defendants' 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for lack of statutory
standing and for failure to state a claim was denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Marla Knudsen, et al. v. MetLife
Group Inc., Case No. 23-2420, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, filed on August 22, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MARLA KNUDSEN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Defendant-Appellee METLIFE GROUP INC. is represented by:
Randi F. Knepper, Esq.
MCELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER
1300 Mount Kemble Avenue
P.O. Box 2075
Morristown, NJ 07962
MILITARY ADVANTAGE: Settles Facebook Privacy Class Suit for $7.35M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Military.com operator Military
Advantage agreed to pay $7.35 million to resolve claims that it
violated user privacy rights by using Facebook Pixel tracking.
The settlement benefits Military.com users who have a Facebook
account and who accessed a video through Military.com on the same
browser they used to access Facebook between June 8, 2020, and Nov.
1, 2022.
According to the privacy class action lawsuit, Military.com used
Facebook Pixel tracking to link user activity with Facebook
accounts. This was allegedly done without consent in violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).
Military.com is a news source operated by Military Advantage that
focuses primarily on military-related news.
Military Advantage hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$7.35 million settlement to resolve the data privacy class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Military.com privacy settlement, class
members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund.
Based on the class definition, each class member is expected to
receive up to $30.
Military Advantage has also agreed to stop using Facebook Pixel
tracking for at least two years in order to respect user privacy.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 9, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Military.com privacy settlement
is scheduled for Nov. 9, 2023.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 24, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Military.com users who have a Facebook account and who accessed a
video through Military.com on the same browser they used to access
Facebook between June 8, 2020, and Nov. 1, 2022
Potential Award
Up to $30
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
10/24/2023
Case Name
Young, et al. v. Military Advantage Inc. d/b/a Military.com, Case
No. 2023LA000535, in the Circuit Court for the 18th Judicial
Circuit of Dupage County, Illinois
Final Hearing
11/09/2023
Settlement Website
MilitaryVPPASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Military.com Privacy Settlement
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2239
Portland, OR 97208-2239
877-352-0889
Class Counsel
Philip L Fraietta
Joshua D Arisohn
Christopher R Reilly
BURSOR & FISHER PA
Gary M Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Defense Counsel
Kristine R Argentine
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP [GN]
MILLENIA COMPANIES: Faces Class Suit Over 2022 Deadly Explosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Battles of Kark.com reports that tenants of Shorter College
Gardens Apartments announced September 7, 2023 that they have filed
a class action lawsuit against a property management company
following a deadly explosion in 2022.
The suit claims that The Millennia Companies failed to adequately
maintain their properties and failed to provide safe, habitable
living for its tenants.
On Oct. 4, 2022, an explosion at Shorter College Garden Apartments
claimed the lives of three tenants and displaced several families.
The suit claims that the defendants knowingly told tenants that the
place was safe while there was a gas leak.
The suit also claims that tenants complained to management about
the living conditions, specifically reporting the smell of gas and
carbon monoxide, mold, bed bug and rodent infestation and several
other conditions.
The tenants are seeking a minimum of $860,000,000 in damages, which
represents an average of $10,000 per 86,000 people who reside at
properties owned by Millenia. The plaintiffs are also seeking a
minimum of $4.3 million in punitive damages. [GN]
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Lentil Chips Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Leal of Courthouse News Service reports that Letting the chips
fall where they may didn't cut muster with a federal judge on
September 6, 2023, as he allowed a consumer class action against
Mondelez International over the label on its Enjoy Life lentil
chips to move.
Plaintiff Avi Klammer claims Mondelez's product is labeled as "high
protein" and "protein packed" and is neither. Enjoy Life lentil
chip varieties include sea salt, garlic and parmesan, dill and sour
cream, Thai chili lime and Margherita pizza.
Mondelez moved to dismiss, but in his written order U.S. District
Judge Jeffrey White concluded that the "plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged that the statements 'high protein lentils' and
'protein-packed' plausibly imply a level of protein contained in
the product and constitute nutrient content claims. The court finds
plaintiff has plausibly alleged his claim that the 'high protein'
and 'protein-packed' statements on the product labels are unlawful
based on the omission of the corrected amount of protein per
serving. The court denies the motion to dismiss on this basis."
Klammer's prior complaint, which the court dismissed with leave to
amend, centered on what Klammer claimed was deception by Mondelez
through misleading "high protein" and "protein packed" statements.
But his time around, White, a George W. Bush appointee, found
Klammer "shifted the focus of his complaint to an omission-based
claim: that the labeling of the product is unlawful and deceptive
based on the omission of the corrected amount of protein in the
nutrition facts panel."
Klammer claims Mondelez left out information in the nutrition facts
panel a statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving
calculated according to the "Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino
Acid Score" required by the Food and Drug Administration.
According to Klammer, he "regularly checks the nutrition facts
panel before purchasing any product … and uses that information
as a basis of comparison between similar products" and that "he
prefers products that provide more of the recommended daily amount
of protein."
White found Klammer has sufficiently shown reliance on the omission
of the percent daily value from the nutrition facts panel.
Mondelez argues that the Klammer's reliance on the omission of the
percent daily value from the nutrition panel doesn't hold weight
and is implausible because Klammer claims he read the nutrition
facts panel, which clarifies that the product contains only 3 grams
of protein per serving.
Mondelez contends Klammer could not have interpreted the nutrition
facts panel to mean that the chips were high-protein snacks
regardless of whether the nutrition facts panel stated the percent
daily value.
But White disagreed in his order.
"Thus, plaintiff's reliance on the FDA regulations provides an
objective benchmark that supports the plausibility of plaintiff's
allegations that the phrase "protein-packed" means that the product
is a good source of protein. As such, the court concludes plaintiff
has plausibly alleged that "protein-packed" is an actionable
misrepresentation," White wrote.
But Mondelez managed to get some of Klammer's claims tossed.
"However, the court is not persuaded by plaintiff's allegations
that the statements 'better-for-you' and 'one of the best sources
of plant-based protein' would mislead a reasonable consumer.
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that these claims are
actionable misrepresentations rather than puffery, explained how
these claims are misleading, or alleged reliance on these
statements. Thus, the court dismisses plaintiff's claims to the
extent they are premised on these challenged label statements,"
White wrote.
Mondelez did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Neither of the class attorneys, Christopher Aumais of
Good/Gustafson/Aumais in Los Angeles and Steffan Keeton of The
Keeton Firm in Pittsburgh, responded to requests for comment by
press time.
White set a case management conference for Oct. 13, with both
parties filing a joint case management statement no later than Oct.
6
Mondelez is a multinational confectionery, food, holding, beverage
and snack food company based in Chicago with annual revenue of
about $26 billion. It operates in around 160 countries. [GN]
MONEY NETWORK FINANCIAL: Silva Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Money Network
Financial, LLC. The case is styled as Ruben Silva, Russell
Harrington, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Money Network Financial, LLC, Fiserv, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-06798-SVW-SSC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Money Network Financial -- https://www.moneynetwork.com/ -- is a
leading provider of Electronic Payroll Distribution and related
open-loop prepaid products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Michael Kneupper, Esq.
Alexander Cyclone Covey, Esq.
Amber Weekes, Esq.
KNEUPPER AND COVEY PC
17011 Beach Boulevard Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Phone: (657) 845-3100
Email: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
cyclone@kneuppercovey.com
lorraine@kneuppercovey.com
MYERS OF KESWICK: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Myers of Keswick,
Ltd. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Myers of Keswick, Ltd., Case No.
1:23-cv-06714 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Myers of Keswick -- https://myersofkeswick.com/ -- is a Specialty
food located on Hudson Street in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Flores Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order denying their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit
entitled Brian Flores, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The National Football League, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00871, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
The Plaintiff seeks an award of injunctive relief to address
discriminatory policies and practices; award of compensatory
damages for, including, but not limited to, loss of reputation,
loss of opportunity, and mental anguish; punitive damages;
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts due; award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and such other and further
relief resulting from Discrimination under Section 1981 of the U.S.
Constitution, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human
Rights Law and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration in an opinion dated March 1, 2023. The Court
compelled arbitration of the claims brought by Ray Horton against
the Tennessee Titans, Steve Wilks against the Arizona Cardinals,
and Brian Flores against the Miami Dolphins, as well as all related
claims against the National Football League (NFL); the Court denied
the motion to compel arbitration of Mr. Flores' claims against the
New York Giants, the Denver Broncos, and the Houston Texans, as
well as his related claims against the NFL.
The Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the portions of the
Arbitration Opinion granting the motion to compel arbitration.
On Mar. 15, 2023, the Defendants cross-moved for reconsideration,
seeking to compel arbitration of the remaining claims, which the
Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Valerie E. Caproni
on July 25, 2023.
Judge Caproni held that as the parties moving to compel
arbitration, the Defendants carried the burden of proving the
existence of a written agreement binding the parties to arbitrate
the present matter. When the Defendants moved to compel
arbitration, they failed to do so.
The appellate case is captioned Flores v. The National Football
League, Case No. 23-1185, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on August 22, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee BRIAN FLORES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
John Elefterakis, Esq.
ELEFTERAKIS & ELEFTERAKIS, P.C.
112 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 532-1116
- and -
David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Defendants-Appellants NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al. are
represented by:
Loretta Lynch, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
NEW YORK COMPUTER: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Computer
Help, LLC. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. New York Computer
Help, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06717 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
New York Computer Help -- https://www.newyorkcomputerhelp.com/ --
is directly repairing logic boards and all MacBook, iMac, and Mac
Pro issues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Bowser Class Suit Over Boot and Tow Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims the City of New York and three current and former New
York Police Department (NYPD) commissioners are liable for the law
enforcement agency's allegedly unconstitutional boot-and-tow
policy.
According to the 18-page suit, the defendants have failed to
address the NYPD's allegedly illegal policy of towing vehicles
within approximately two hours after they've been booted without
providing the owner a reasonable opportunity to avoid the towing.
City law "clearly" guarantees individuals the opportunity to avoid
the towing of a booted car by paying the boot fee at the spot where
the boot is affixed or by challenging the boot during an immediate
hearing at the Parking Violations Bureau, the case explains.
However, NYPD's policy "completely ignores" these provisions and
instead forces vehicle owners to travel to the tow pound and pay
the boot fee in-person, the complaint states. In addition, the
two-hour timeframe owners are given to obtain a hearing at the
Parking Violations Bureau in order to challenge the boot or towing
is "utterly insufficient," the filing alleges.
"[T]he procedure afforded by the NYPD for avoiding a tow and tow
fee was designed to collect both a boot fee and tow fee in a most
substantial [sic] number of, if not virtually all, booting
situations," the lawsuit claims, adding that the process is "not
only unlawful, it is unreasonable as it does not afford a real
possibility of avoiding the towing and having to pay a tow fee, let
alone challenging the booting before the vehicle is towed."
The suit further argues that the boot-and-tow policy constitutes a
warrantless seizure and excessive fine in violation of vehicle
owners' constitutional rights.
"Two penalties imposed for the same alleged violation within two
hours of one another are excessive and unjustified because the
vehicle owner is not afforded a reasonable possibility to pay the
first penalty (the boot) before the second one (the towing) is
imposed," the case contends.
On April 3 of this year, the plaintiff, a Brooklyn resident, was
issued a notice of a parking violation, the complaint says. Per the
filing, the man's car was booted minutes later, and a warning form
was placed on his windshield explaining that he had two hours to
pay a $185 boot fee at the tow pound located in Brooklyn,
otherwise, his vehicle would be towed there for an additional $185
charge.
The plaintiff's car was towed, and after collecting it from the tow
pound, he was "surprised" with extra storage fees that brought his
total charges to $499.80, the suit relays.
"NYPD's policy is a conscious and calculated choice by the NYPD,
the City of New York and/or the [current and former NYPD
commissioners] . . . who, during all relevant time periods hereto,
have ignored the possible lawful alternatives to enforce New York
City's parking regulations without trampling on the constitutional
rights of motor vehicle owners," the case scathes.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose motor vehicle was
booted by the NYPD or an agent thereof since August 16, 2020 and
who was not given a reasonable opportunity to pay or challenge the
booting fee and have the boot removed without leaving their
vehicle's vicinity, was not given any other reasonable method of
avoiding towing, and was damaged by having to pay a booting or
towing fee and/or possibly storage costs, penalties and interest.
[GN]
NIO INC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIO, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in In re: NIO, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:19-CV-01424, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Plaintiffs in this action seek to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the
Defendants filed materially false and/or misleading statements with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial
results, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) NIO would
not be building its own manufacturing plant and would instead
continue to rely on JAC Auto to manufacture its vehicles; (2)
reductions in government subsidies for electric cars would
materially impact NIO's sales; and (3) as a result, the Defendants'
statements about NIO's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On Dec. 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Nicholas
G. Garaufis on Aug. 8, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned In re: NIO, Inc., Securities
Litigation, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on August 22, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JONATHAN TAN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Yu Shi, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Defendants-Appellants NIO, INC., et al. are represented by:
Scott A. Edelman, Esq.
Jed M. Schwartz, Esq.
Allison S. Markowitz, Esq.
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 530-5000
E-mail: sedelman@milbank.com
jschwartz@milbank.com
amarkowitz@milbank.com
- and -
Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
Robert A. Fumerton, Esq.
Michael C. Griffin, Esq.
Judith A. Flumenbaum, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
E-mail: scott.musoff@skadden.com
robert.fumerton@skadden.com
michael.griffin@skadden.com
judy.flumenbaum@skadden.com
- and -
Andrew J. Ehrlich, Esq.
Xinshu Sui, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
E-mail: aehrlich@paulweiss.com
xsui@paulweiss.com
- and -
Jane B. O'Brien, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
2001 K. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
E-mail: jobrien@paulweiss.com
OPENAI INC: Faces Chabon Suit Over Copyright Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHABON; DAVID HENRY HWANG; MATTHEW KLAM; RACHEL LOUISE
SNYDER; and AYELET WALDMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPENAI, INC.; OPENAI,
L.P.; OPENAI OPCO, LLC; OPENAI GP LLC; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I,
LLC; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, LP; and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04625 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2023)
is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and a Class of authors holding copyrights in their
published works arising from OpenAI's clear infringement of their
intellectual property.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, OpenAI incorporated
the Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrighted works in datasets
used to train its GPT models powering its ChatGPT product. Indeed,
when ChatGPT is prompted, it generates not only summaries, but
in-depth analyses of the themes present in the Plaintiffs'
copyrighted works, which is only possible if the underlying GPT
model was trained using the Plaintiffs' works, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class members did not consent to the use of
their copyrighted works as training material for GPT models or for
use with ChatGPT.
The Defendants, by and through their operation of ChatGPT,
allegedly benefit commercially and profit handsomely from their
unauthorized and illegal use of the Plaintiffs' and Class members'
copyrighted works.
OPENAI, INC. operates as an investment company. The Company focuses
on investments in early-stage artificial intelligence startups with
focuses on health care, climate change, and education sectors.
OpenAI serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Muller, Esq.
VENTURA HERSEY & MULLER, LLP
1506 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
Telephone: (408) 512-3022
Facsimile: (408) 512-3023
Email: dmuller@venturahersey.com
-and -
Bryan L. Clobes
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
205 N. Monroe Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
-and -
Alexander J. Sweatman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Email: asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
OPENAI INC: Faces Suit Over Consumer Privacy Laws' Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Brittain of Reuters reports that OpenAI and its main backer
Microsoft (MSFT.O) are facing at least their second class action
lawsuit in San Francisco federal court for allegedly breaking
several privacy laws in developing OpenAI's popular chatbot ChatGPT
and other generative artificial intelligence systems.
The complaint, filed on September 5, 2023 on behalf of two unnamed
software engineers who use ChatGPT, accuses the companies of
training their fast-growing AI technology using stolen personal
information from hundreds of millions of internet users.
The lawsuit, brought by personal-injury law giant Morgan & Morgan,
is largely identical to a complaint filed by the public-interest
focused Clarkson Law Firm against OpenAI and Microsoft in June,
with dozens of pages repeated verbatim from the earlier case.
Clarkson Law Firm managing partner Ryan Clarkson said in a
statement on September 6, 2023 that he welcomes the chance to work
with Morgan & Morgan to "hold BigAI accountable for their mass
theft of personal information and violations of privacy, property,
and consumer rights."
Representatives for Morgan & Morgan, OpenAI and Microsoft did not
immediately respond to requests for comment on the new lawsuit on
September 6, 2023. The companies have not yet responded in court to
the lawsuit from June.
In addition to the privacy cases, tech companies including
Microsoft, OpenAI, Google and Stability AI have been hit with
recent lawsuits over the "scraping" of copyrighted materials and
personal data from across the internet to train their generative AI
systems.
OpenAI's ChatGPT became the fastest-growing consumer application in
history earlier this year, reaching 100 million active users in
January only two months after it was launched. Microsoft has
invested billions of dollars in the company.
On September 5, 2023 lawsuit accuses OpenAI of misusing the
plaintiffs' personal data from social media platforms and other
sites to train ChatGPT and other systems. It said the two engineers
who brought the lawsuit are concerned that the companies have
incorporated their "skills and expertise" into products that could
"someday result in [their] professional obsolescence."
The engineers asked the court for an unspecified amount of money
damages and to order the companies to implement safeguards
preventing the misuse of private data.
The case is A.T. v. OpenAI LP, U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, No. 3:23-cv-04557.
For the plaintiffs: Michael Ram, John Yanchunis and Ryan McGee of
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group
For OpenAI and Microsoft: attorney information not yet available
[GN]
ORRICK HERRINGTON: Faces Class Suit Over March 2023 Cyberattack
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe, LLP faces a proposed class action that claims the law
firm failed to protect the personal information of 152,818
individuals from a March 2023 cyberattack.
The 37-page lawsuit says that after the firm purportedly discovered
on March 13 that an unauthorized third party had infiltrated its
network, a subsequent investigation revealed that hackers had
accessed its computer systems and obtained certain files days
before, on March 7. The suit relays that the private information
compromised in the "massive" data breach included names, addresses,
dates of birth and Social Security numbers.
According to the case, the international law firm "negligently"
failed to implement reasonable data security measures to safeguard
the personal information of its clients, which the suit alleges it
stored in an "inadequately protected" computer network.
"In short, thanks to [Orrick's] failure to protect the breach
victims' personal information," the complaint argues, "cyber
criminals were able to steal everything they could possibly need to
commit nearly every conceivable form of identity theft and wreak
havoc on the financial and personal lives of potentially millions
of individuals."
The filing also takes issue with the defendant's delayed
notification of victims of the cyberattack. Though the law firm
purports to have detected the breach in March, it did not begin
sending notices to impacted individuals until late June, nearly
four months later, the suit shares.
"During this time, the cyber criminals had free reign to surveil
and defraud their unsuspecting victims," the lawsuit contends.
Per the case, although Orrick has offered affected individuals two
years of complimentary identity monitoring services, the gesture is
"woefully inadequate" and does not compensate for the lifelong
risks of fraud and identity theft that victims now face as a result
of the firm's negligence.
The plaintiff, a North Carolina resident, received on August 18 of
this year a notice informing him that his personal information had
been compromised in the breach, the filing says. The man claims
that he has experienced since the cyberattack a "flood" of spam
calls from unknown sources.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose personal information
was compromised in the data breach discovered on March 13, 2023,
including anyone who was sent notice of the incident. [GN]
PANERA LLC: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No. HUD-L-02395-23
was removed from Superior Court of NJ, Hudson County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04207-JXN-JSA to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Panera Bread -- https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/home.html -- is
an American chain store of bakery-cafe fast casual restaurants with
over 2,000 locations, all of which are in the United States and
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Fax: (973) 525-2552
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gregg S. Kahn, Esq.
WILSON ELSER
33 Washington Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 624-0800
Email: gregg.kahn@wilsonelser.com
PAPA JOHN'S: Schnur Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jordan Schnur filed an appeal from the District Court's
August 28, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled JORDAN
SCHNUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S, Case No.
2:22-cv-01620-AJS, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit filed on
November 15, 2022 alleges that the Defendant wiretaps the
electronic communications of visitors to its website,
www.papajohns.com in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Papa John's procurement of the
Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code
results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder"
of each visitor to the Papa John's website for the entire duration
of their website interaction, the suit says.
On March 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
against the Defendant.
On April 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction/motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
On Aug. 28, 2023, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan entered an Order
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. The first amended complaint
was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The appellate case is captioned as Jordan Schnur v. Papa John's
International Inc., Case No. 23-2573, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Aug. 30, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JORDAN SCHNUR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Nicholas Colella, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Defendant-Appellee PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL INC, DBA Papa Johns,
is represented by:
Eric C. Bosset, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING
850 10th Street NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5606
- and -
Emily J. Henn, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 632-4715
- and -
Jeffrey Huberman, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING
850 10th Street NW
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5166
- and -
Ziwei Song, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 955-6898
- and -
Peter S. Wolff, Esq.
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI
301 Grant Street
One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 263-4352
PBM ENTERPRISES: Faces Washington Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAZMYN WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PBM ENTERPRISES, INC a/k/a NOMAD,
MOEED PARVEZ NAGRA, BASSAM P. NAGRA, and SOHAILA KAUSER,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-03368 (S.D. Tex., September 11, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, and illegal kickbacks and forced tipping.
The Plaintiff was originally hired by the Defendants as a server
approximately 15 months ago and was never paid on an hourly basis.
PBM Enterprises, Inc a/k/a Nomad is an operator of a lounge and
restaurant, with its principal office located in Houston, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrick A. Reed, Esq.
Marrick Armstrong, Esq.
Ghazal A. Vahora, Esq.
STEPHENS REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC
2626 South Loop W., Suite 522
Houston, TX 77054
Telephone: (281) 489-3934
Facsimile: (281) 657-7050
E-mail: derrick@srapllc.com
marrick@srapllc.com
ghazal@srapllc.com
PENSION BENEFIT: Golestani Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pension Benefit
Information, LLC. The case is styled as Jian Golestani,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Pension Benefit Information, LLC doing business as: PBI Research
Services, Case No. 0:23-cv-02478-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., Aug. 10,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Pension Benefit Information -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- provides
pension management service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 6th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 222-2434
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
Mpls, MN 55401-2179
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
Email: Khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Claudia D. McCarron, Esq.
Paulyne Gardner, Esq.
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200
Devon, PA 19333
Phone: (267) 930-4770
Fax: (267) 930-4771
Email: cmccarron@mullen.law
pgardner@mullen.law
- and -
Emily Liebman, Esq.
MASLON LLP
3300 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 750-0548
Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com
- and -
Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq.
MASLON LLP
90 S 7th St Ste 3300
Mpls, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 672-8309
Fax: (612) 642-8309
Email: keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRCT: Tannen Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The School District
of Philadelphia. The case is styled as Ethan Tannen, Carolyn E.
Gray, Karen Celli, on behalf of themselves and all persons
similarly situated v. The School District of Philadelphia, Case No.
2:23-cv-03189-CMR (E.D. Pa., Aug. 18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
The School District of Philadelphia -- https://www.philasd.org/ --
providing a high-quality education that prepares, ensures, and
empowers students to achieve their full intellectual and social
potential.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC
1717 Arch St., Suite 4020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 320-5660
Fax: (215) 320-5703
Email: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Severance Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that virtual conferencing
company Premiere Global Services Inc. plans to settle a class
action claiming it failed to pay severance to workers terminated in
a series of 2021 layoffs.
The parties reached a tentative agreement and plan to file the deal
for court approval by Oct. 15, they said in a joint notice filed on
September 6, 2023 in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. The notice didn't include details about the
terms of the agreement.
The lawsuit, filed last year by three former Premiere Global
employees, accuses the company of agreeing to pay laid-off workers
basic severance payments. [GN]
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Okonoski Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Bradley Okonoski,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01550-PAG
(N.D. Ohio, Aug. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. -- https://www.progressive.com/
-- is an insurance company. The Company provides personal,
automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health
insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANN LAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Phone: (216) 373-0539
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: notices@dannlaw.com
bflick@dannlaw.com
PURFOODS LLC: Douglas Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Douglas and Dorothy Goodon, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PurFoods, LLC d/b/a
Mom's Meals, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00332-RGE-SBJ (D. Iowa,
September 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, bailment, intrusion upon seclusion, declaratory
judgment and violations of the Iowa Consumer Frauds Act, Iowa
Personal Information Security Breach Protection Act, and the State
Data Breach Statutes.
On January 16, 2023, PurFoods experienced a data breach incident in
which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems
and databases and stole private information belonging to the
Plaintiffs and the Class. PurFoods discovered this unauthorized
access on February 22, 2023, upon which it launched an
investigation with the aid of third-party data security
specialists. This investigation, which concluded on July 10, 2023,
determined that private information belonging to PurFoods'
customers and employees had been stolen by cybercriminals in the
successful attack. On August 25, 2023, PurFoods began issuing data
breach notices to individuals whose information was believed to
have been stolen in this incident.
The Plaintiffs assert that the data breach occurred because
PurFoods inexcusably failed to implement reasonable security
protections to safeguard its information systems and databases.
They bring this action on behalf of all those similarly situated
employees to seek relief for the consequences of Defendant's
failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class members'
private information; its failure to reasonably provide timely
notification that Plaintiffs' and Class members' private
information had been compromised by an unauthorized third party;
and for intentionally and unconscionably deceiving Plaintiffs and
Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and
protection of their private information.
PurFoods, which operates under the name "Mom's Meals," is a
meal-delivery company based in Ankeny, Iowa that prepares and
delivers refrigerated, ready-to-eat meals to customers all over the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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 -
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
Alex Lee, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
alee@caffertyclobes.com
RADIUS GLOBAL: Daggett Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Melissa Daggett, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-02471-PAM-ECW (D. Minn., Aug. 10,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a
leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and
revenue cycle management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avraham Z. Cutler, Esq.
CGW LAW PLLC
5995 East Grant Road, Suite 200
Tucson, AZ 85712
Phone: (520) 222-7338
Email: acutler@cutlerlawgroup.com
- and -
Muhammad Hasan Siddiqui
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: hsiddiqui@steinsakslegal.com
REGAL SECURITIES: Hoffman Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
JOHN HOFFMAN, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL SECURITIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06835 (N.D. Ill., September 1, 2023) is
a class action arising from the recent cyberattack and data breach
resulting from Regal's failure to implement reasonable and industry
standard data security practices.
According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
Plaintiff and other consumers' personally identifiable information
from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, says the suit.
Regal Securities, Inc. is a financial company that provides
brokerage, insurance support as well as advisory services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
RELIANCE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Ventura Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYURI DELOS SANTOS VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELIANCE HOME SENIOR
SERVICES, LLC, and DANA ARNONE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06693
(E.D.N.Y., September 8, 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 overtime wages, failure
to pay spread-of-hours wages, failure to furnish proper wage
statements, and failure to furnish proper wage notice; and for
violation of the requirements of the New York State Executive Law
and the New York City Administrative Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home health aide
from in or around January 2021 until in or around May 2022.
Reliance Home Senior Services, LLC is a home health care service
provider, with a principal executive office located at 3366 Park
Ave., Ste. 204, Wantagh, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Made in USA Label "Deceptive," Mayfield Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZULAIKA MAYFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-04587-KAW (N.D. Cal., September 7,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
aluminum foil under the "Reynolds Wrap" brand. The Defendant labels
the product with the words "FOIL MADE IN U.S.A." However, the raw
material for the aluminum in aluminum foil is bauxite, the only
commercial ore of aluminum, which is sourced outside the U.S.
including Australia, Guinea, India, Brazil, Jamaica, and Vietnam.
The Plaintiff and the Class members paid a price premium for the
Defendant's aluminum foil products based on the "Made in U.S.A."
representations. Had the Plaintiff and the Class members known the
truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid
less for it, the suit alleges.
Reynolds Consumer Products LLC is a producer of aluminum products,
with its principal place of business in Lake Forest, Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
RGV BOOT JACK: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGV Boot Jack, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. RGV Boot Jack, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07970 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RGV Boot Jack, LLC -- https://bootjack.com/ -- offers boots, shoes,
socks, shirts, jeans, dress pants, jackets, coats, vests, belts,
buckles, hats, caps, beanies, neckwear, wallets, cologne and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
RMS US LLP: Monroe Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RMS US LLP. The case
is styled as Edward Monroe, Fabian Moore, Timothy Williams, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees,
Petitioner v. RMS US LLP, Respondent, Case No. 1:23-mc-00730-JPW
(M.D. Pa., Sept. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as MOTION to Compel Post-Judgment
Discovery.
RSM US LLP -- http://rsmus.com/-- is an audit, tax, and consulting
firm focused on the middle market in the United States and Canada
and is a member of the global accounting network RSM
International.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick J. Troy, Esq.
SIRLIN, LESSER & BENSON, PC
123 S. Broad St., Ste. 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 864-9700
Email: ptroy@sirlinlaw.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Mirabadi Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Farah Mirabadi, individual and on behalf of a
class of other similarly situated individual v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
23SL-CC03252 was removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on Aug. 18, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06809-PSG-SP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. -- https://www.spservicing.com/ --
is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital
Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
Barret T. Alexander, Esq.
Shant Arthur Karnikian, Esq.
KABATECK LLP
633 West 5th Street Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 217-5000
Fax: (213) 217-5010
Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com
ba@kbklawyers.com
sk@kbklawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 South Figueroa Street 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Phone: (213) 426-2500
Fax: (213) 623-1673
Email: lstoll@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
Allison J. Schoenthal, Esq.
Alyssa A. Sussman, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 459-7183
Fax: (212) 937-3850
Email: aschoenthal@goodwinlaw.com
asussman@goodwinlaw.com
SIGNALHIRE LLC: Gaul Sues Over Unlawful Use of Names and Identities
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Gaul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SIGNALHIRE LLC, a Polish Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01301-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Aug. 10, 2023), is
brought against Defendant to put an end to Defendant's unlawful
practice of using the names and identities of Illinois residents
without their consent to promote its paid services.
To market its services, SignalHire encourages consumers to perform
a free people search on its websites. When consumers perform a free
search for an individual, SignalHire displays a webpage featuring
the searched-for individual's full name alongside certain uniquely
identifying information, including the searched-for individual's
employment history, job title, and job description. The purpose of
these pages is twofold: first, it shows potential customers that
SignalHire's database contains detailed reports for the specific
individual who is the subject of a search and represents that a
paid report contains much more information about the individual
than the "free" report such as their contact information; and
second, Defendant offers to sell visitors a paid subscription to
Defendant's services, where visitors can access detailed reports
about anybody in its database. In other words, SignalHire does not
offer to sell detailed reports only about the individuals searched
on its websites, but rather, uses those individuals' identities to
sell subscriptions to paid services.
Unsurprisingly, the people appearing in these advertisements never
provided SignalHire with their consent (written or otherwise) to
use their identities for any reason, let alone for its own
marketing and commercial purposes. By knowingly using Plaintiff's
identity in its advertisements without consent and for Defendant's
own commercial gain, SignalHire violated—and continues to
violate—Illinois' right of publicity statute, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of Normal, Illinois,
and a citizen of the State of Illinois.
SignalHire operates a website that sells access to a database
containing proprietary information to anybody willing to pay
SignalHire for access to it.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Ovca, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 589-6370
Fax: (312) 589-6378
Email: movca@edelson.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
SODEXO SA: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Platt Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SODEXO, SA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying
their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Robert
Platt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sodexo, SA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:22-cv-02211-DOC-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from Sodexo's alleged unlawful collection of nicotine
surcharge from its medical plan participants in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
anti-discrimination requirements. ERISA prohibits any health
insurer or medical plan from discriminating against any participant
in providing coverage or charging premiums based on a "health
status-related factor," including the use of tobacco. Sodexo's
nicotine surcharge violates this provision. The Plaintiff and
similarly situated plan participants were required to pay an
additional premium or contribution of $1,200 per year based on a
health status-related factor, that being their use of nicotine
products, says the suit.
On Mar. 29, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge David O. Carter on July 25, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Robert Platt v. Sodexo, S.A., et
al., Case No. 23-55737, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 23, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Sodexo, Inc. and Sodexo, S.A. Mediation
Questionnaire was due on August 30, 2023;
-- Appellants Sodexo, Inc. and Sodexo, S.A. opening brief is due
on November 30, 2023;
-- Appellee Robert Platt answering brief is due on January 2,
2024; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee ROBERT PLATT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
George Allan Hanson, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
- and -
Jason Scott Hartley, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
Defendants-Appellants SODEXO, S.A., et al. are represented by:
Sean Paisan, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, PC
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
- and -
Rene E. Thorne, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, PC
601 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 208-1755
SONDER HOLDINGS: Wang Files Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonder Holdings Inc.
The case is styled as Zeyu Wang, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sonder Holdings Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02013-MEH (D. Colo., Aug. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Sonder Holdings Inc. -- http://www.sonder.com/-- manages
short-term rentals, such as apartment hotels, in North America,
Europe, and Dubai.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Edward Radcliffe, Esq.
CUETO LAW
7110 West Main
Belleville, IL 62223
Phone: (618) 277-1554
Fax: (618) 277-0962
Email: jradcliffe@cuetolaw.com
STATE FARM: Sasson Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Assaf Sasson, Ada Sasson, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, Case No. COINX-22-049821 was removed from the
17th Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Broward Co., to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug.
18, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-61594-RS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a group of
mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cristina M. Pierson, Esq.
KELLEY UUSTAL
700 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 300
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 522-6601
Fax: (954) 522-6608
Email: cmp@kulaw.com
- and -
Daren Alan Stabinski, Esq.
DAREN STABINSKI PA
1213 NE 1st St
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 540-9517
Fax: (954) 245-0739
Email: dstabinski@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher Mark Paolini, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS PA
CityPlace Tower Suite 1200
525 Okeechobee Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Email: CPaolini@cfjblaw.com
- and -
Johanna W. Clark, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 500
PO Box 1171
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 849-0300
Fax: (407) 628-8099
Email: jclark@carltonfields.com
- and -
John Ernest Clabby, Esq.
D. Matthew Allen, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, PA
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
Tampa, FL 33607
Phone: (813) 223-7000
Fax: (813) 229-4133
Email: jclabby@carltonfields.com
mallen@carltonfields.com
- and -
Miguel A. Rodriguez, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
200 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1000
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 849-0300
TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Arbuckle Sues Over Improper Insurance Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARBUCKLE FUNDING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE AND
ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-07972-CS
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023) alleges that the Defendant forced the
Plaintiff and the Class to pay unlawful and excessive cost of
insurance, and excessive premium tax charges.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act by not reducing its cost of insurance rates according to a
pre-TCJA rate scale. The Defendant ignored the post-TCJA tax
expectations, and kept the windfall profits that it is generating
despite the TCJA. In addition to the cost of insurance charges, the
Defendant also imposes premium tax charges, which are designed to
cover premium taxes that the Defendant must pay each state from
which it receives a premium payment, says the suit.
TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY provides
insurance services. The Company offers risk management and annuity
business technology solutions for life insurance industry as well
as provides consulting services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
Seth Ard, Esq.
Zachary B. Savage, Esq.
Daniel D. Duhaine, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32 nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com
rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
zsavage@susmangodfrey.com
dduhaine@susmangodfrey.com
TESLA INC: Faces Employees' Class Suit Over Unprotected Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brow of Bloomberg Law reports that Tesla Inc. allegedly
failed to protect the personal information of 75,000 current and
former employees that was exposed in a May data breach carried out
by former employees of the company, a proposed federal class action
said.
Benson Pai alleged that Tesla failed to implement or follow
reasonable data security procedures as required by law and failed
to protect the sensitive information of class members from
unauthorized access.
Tesla learned of the breach in May, when it was informed by a
German-language news service, Handelsblatt, that two former Tesla
employees had provided it with information taken from Tesla's
network, according to a complaint filed Sept. 5 in the US District
Court for the Northern District of California.
Information exposed in the breach included employees' names,
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, and
Social Security numbers, the complaint said.
Tesla didn't respond immediately to a request for comment.
Pai seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California subclass
of people whose personal information was exposed in the breach.
Victims have suffered damages in the form of invasion of privacy,
increased risk of identity theft and fraud, lost time and
out-of-pocket costs incurred responding to the breach, anxiety, and
reduced value of their personal information, the complaint said.
The lawsuit brings claims of negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
confidence, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
the Customer Records Act, and the Consumer Privacy Act.
Pai is seeking compensatory damages, statutory damages, nominal
damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
Swigart Law Group APC and Ben Travis of San Diego represent Pai and
the proposed class.
The case is Pai v. Tesla, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 4:23-cv-04550, case
filed 9/5/23.
To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Brown in St.
Louis at ChrisBrown@bloombergindustry.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloombergindustry.com [GN]
TEXAS ENT SPECIALISTS: Settles 2021 Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Texas Ear, Nose & Throat (ENT)
Specialists agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve
claims that it failed to prevent a 2021 data breach.
The settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach
notification from Texas ENT Specialists informing them that their
information was compromised in a data breach that occurred between
Aug. 9 and 15, 2021.
According to the class action lawsuit, Texas ENT failed to prevent
a 2021 data breach that compromised sensitive patient information,
including Social Security numbers. Plaintiffs in the case claim
Texas ENT could have prevented the breach through reasonable
cybersecurity measures.
Texas ENT Specialists is a network of over 30 doctors who provide
ear, nose and throat care for patients.
Texas ENT hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum in a settlement to resolve the data breach class
action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Texas ENT settlement, class members can
receive up to $300 for ordinary out-of-pocket expenses such as
communication charges, internet fees, credit expenses and other
documented costs. Class members can also claim up to three hours of
lost time at a rate of $20 per hour for a maximum lost time payment
of $60, subject to the same $300 ordinary expense cap.
Class members who experienced extraordinary losses due to the data
breach, such as unreimbursed fraudulent charges or identity theft
damages, can seek up to $3,000 in additional reimbursement for
these larger expenses.
Class members can receive two years of free credit monitoring
services if their Social Security numbers were involved in the data
breach. All other class members, whose Social Security numbers were
not involved in the data breach, can receive two years of
IdentityForce RapidResponse ID.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 23, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Texas ENT settlement is
scheduled for Dec. 5, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 23, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a data breach notification from Texas ENT
Specialists informing them that their information was compromised
in a data breach that occurred between Aug. 9 and 15, 2021
Potential Award
$3,300
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of data breach-related expenses
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
10/23/2023
Case Name
Lee, et al. v. Texas Ear, Nose & Throat Specialists PLLC, Case No.
202184322, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, for the
113th Judicial District
Final Hearing
12/05/2023
Settlement Website
TXENTSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Texas ENT Data Breach Settlement
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 2440
Portland, OR 97208-2440
info@TXENTSettlement.com
877-685-2830
Class Counsel
Gary Mason
Danielle Perry
MASON LLP
Jarrett L Ellzey
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES PLLC
Defense Counsel
Michelle R Gomez
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: $15M Deal in Untimely Wages Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Weig of CBS2iowa.com reports that a federal judge has given
final approval to a $15 million class action settlement between
UIHC employees over timely pay. The suit alleged the hospital
failed to pay adjustments (such as overtime and shift
differentials), in a timely manner and failing to pay employees all
of their earned wages in a time manner after they were terminated.
$11 million of the settlement will go to current and former
employees. The Iowa Board of Regents authorized the settlement last
year.
Those impacted by the suit have already registered for their
portion of the settlement, which is currently scheduled for
disbursement next month. [GN]
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Ford Sues Over Illegal Fee Charging of Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-756 (M.D.N.C., September 1, 2023)
arises from the Defendant's alleged conduct of charging illegal
fees to disabled United States Military veterans including
Plaintiff, in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Practices Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act.
According to the complaint, the fees are extracted from victims'
Disability Compensation benefits paid through the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs. Despite its name, Veterans Guardian
in fact preys on disabled veterans by unfairly and deceptively
taking tens of millions of dollars of their disability benefits in
violation of the state laws. Veterans Guardian's contingency fee
equals five times the amount of any monthly VA Disability
Compensation increase, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent all similarly situated veterans
who have paid Veterans Guardian in connection with an alleged
unlawful agency contract that is unfair and deceptive under North
Carolina laws, the home state of Veterans Guardian.
Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC prepares, presents,
and/or prosecutes VA Disability Compensations Claims and Appeals.
It operates a brick-and-mortar location in Pinehurst, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Osterwise, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 191013
Telephone: (215) 875-4656
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: josterwise@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
rraghavan@bm.net
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
c.brochu@brochulaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: $1-Bil. Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein reports that on September 8, 2023, the Honorable
Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted final approval of a $1
billion settlement with Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), ending a
three-year securities fraud class action lawsuit brought on behalf
of investors nationwide. The $1 billion settlement is the 17th
largest securities class action settlement of all time.
"Investors suffered significant losses as a result of Wells Fargo's
fraudulent business practices," said Steven J. Toll, managing
partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. "This historic settlement
will help compensate the hundreds of thousands of investors whose
retirement savings were impacted."
"This extraordinary settlement demonstrates how critical
institutional investors are to keeping the banking industry and
securities markets honest. Our economy depends on the integrity of
these industries," said Laura H. Posner, partner at Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, who oversaw the litigation. "We are honored to have
helped achieve this landmark settlement."
Originally brought in June 2020, investors alleged that between May
30, 2018 and March 12, 2020, the bank and its top executives made
false and misleading statements to the public and Congress
regarding issues of critical concern to its investors: its
compliance with consent orders imposed by the federal government
after the bank's 2016 consumer scandal involving the opening of
unauthorized customer accounts, as well as when regulators would
lift the asset cap they had imposed on Wells Fargo that limited the
bank's growth.
In 2018, Wells Fargo entered into consent orders with the Federal
Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to rectify governance and
oversight failures that had allowed systemic fraudulent practices
to occur at the bank, including opening millions of unauthorized
bank accounts and charging hundreds of thousands of borrowers for
unnecessary insurance. Additionally, the Federal Reserve Board
issued an unprecedented asset cap prohibiting Wells Fargo from
expanding its assets until it had fully complied with its consent
order.
Following entry into the consent orders, plaintiffs allege that
Wells Fargo's senior executives repeatedly told investors that
regulators were satisfied with the bank's progress under the
consent orders and that the asset cap would be timely removed. In
fact, the federal regulators repeatedly rejected the bank's plans.
As a result of the bank's alleged false and misleading statements
and omissions, shares of Wells Fargo common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices, causing investors to pay more for the
stock than it was worth.
The truth was ultimately revealed in a series of disclosures
culminating in March 2020, when both the Democratic majority and
Republican minority of the House Financial Services Committee
released lengthy reports and held hearings demonstrating that Wells
Fargo was not in compliance with the consent orders and had not
taken the steps necessary to satisfy its obligations.
Court-appointed Lead Counsel in this case are Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a premier U.S. plaintiffs'
law firm, with over 100 attorneys handling high-profile and
precedent-setting litigation. Through creative and tenacious
advocacy, Cohen Milstein has recovered billions of dollars for
defrauded investors. For more information visit
www.cohenmilstein.com.
Press Contact: Tess Roy tess.roy@berlinrosen.com [GN]
WILLOWS APARTMENTS: Faces Suit Over Apartment Complex Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriella Killett of Nola reports that a former tenant of
Parc-Fontaine Apartments, an Algiers complex operated by the same
organization as The Willows in New Orleans East and similarly known
as a hotbed of criminal activity, has filed a lawsuit seeking
class-action status against the property's owner.
Four entities owned by the Tennessee-based Global Ministries
Foundation, along with their CEO Richard Hamlet, were sued by
former Parc-Fontaine tenant Alvin Hills on Aug. 8. The petition for
damages, filed in Orleans Parish Civil District Court, seeks
class-action status, which would allow former or current tenants of
the complex at 3101 Rue Parc Fontaine in Algiers to join as
plaintiffs.
Hamlet said on September 5, 2023 he has not seen the lawsuit.
"We have not been served, so we have not been sued, so obviously
there was an issue with the court filing or procedures.
"If we are served and this goes forward, we will defend this
frivolous complaint and probably counter (sue) for damages under
statutory provisions available to us."
The petition is the latest complaint against Global Ministries, as
six current and former tenants of The Willows filed a lawsuit
seeking class-action status against Hamlet and relevant entities in
April. Hamlet similarly responded then, calling The Willows lawsuit
"contrary to the facts."
The Parc-Fontaine suit accuses Hamlet of creating deplorable
conditions for his tenants despite the assertion that Global
Ministries is a Christian organization founded to cater to
Americans in need of affordable housing.
Algae-infested pools, broken gates and a lack of security were
among the 702-unit apartment complex's alleged shortcomings.
Dumpsters overflowing with trash and pests around the complex were
also alleged in the lawsuit.
Most notably, Rue Parc Fontaine was the site of several reported
rapes. On April 14, the New Orleans Police Department arrested a
17-year-old in connection with the rape of four women at the
complex during a two-week period between March 26 and April 7.
Hills, who is represented by attorneys Casey DeReus and DeVonn
Jarrett, rented a three-bedroom unit at the complex in December
2022. He contends he always made his payments, but had to move in
March 2023 due to its poor condition, the lawsuit detailed.
A leak in Hills' bathroom air conditioner, leading to moisture
damage and a caved-in bathroom ceiling, started Hills' issues with
the facility. Later, he claimed, managers deemed him late on his
payment when he wasn't.
The case has been allotted to Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott's court.
[GN]
ZUFFA LLC: Faces Class Suit Over UFC Fight Pass Subscription Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action out of California alleges Zuffa, LLC has violated state law
by enrolling consumers in automatically renewing UFC Fight Pass
subscription plans without providing certain mandatory
disclosures.
The 35-page lawsuit was filed by a Los Angeles consumer who says he
thought he purchased a license to view a single pay-per-view fight
on UFCFightPass.com in July 2020, only to notice in August 2021
that the defendant had enrolled him in a recurring subscription and
automatically charged him a monthly fee of $9.99 for 15 months.
According to the case, the plaintiff was unaware that he had signed
up for a recurring subscription to the sports streaming service due
to UFC Fight Pass's unlawful failure to obtain his affirmative
consent to the offer and clearly disclose its auto-renewal terms
and cancellation policy.
Like the plaintiff, millions of other consumers have been tricked
into unwittingly purchasing monthly or yearly subscriptions to UFC
Fight Pass because of the defendant's "unclear billing practices
and confusing cancellation policy," the filing contends. In fact,
the complaint argues, UFC Fight Pass has made the "deliberate
decision" to rely on "consumer confusion and inertia to retain
customers, combat consumer churn, and bolster its revenues."
Although California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) requires
companies to "clearly and conspicuously" present the complete
"automatic renewal offer terms" before a transaction is completed,
the terms featured on UFC Fight Pass's checkout page are
overshadowed by large calls-to-action and "illegible to the naked
eye without increasing the zoom level even on a large computer
screen," the case contends.
In addition, a large red "Secure Checkout" button, placed under a
line item that simply reads "Total US$9.99," implies that consumers
are agreeing to a single charge tied to a single pay-per-view fight
rather than a monthly subscription, the filing argues.
Moreover, UFC Fight Pass never requires consumers to read or
affirmatively agree to any terms of service associated with their
UFC subscription and, therefore, does not obtain their consent to
automatically charge their credit or debit cards for a continuous
service, the suit says.
The ARL further states that before and after consumers make their
purchase, companies must inform them of the length of the automatic
renewal period, how much they will be charged, how they can cancel
their subscription, when they must cancel to avoid an additional
month's charge and that the fees and service will continue until
they cancel, the filing relays. Companies are also required to send
consumers a post-purchase acknowledgment identifying an "easy and
efficient" cancellation process, the lawsuit adds.
Per the complaint, UFC Fight Pass's checkout page and follow-up
email fail to adequately present these mandatory disclosures to
consumers.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in California who,
during the applicable statute of limitations period, incurred
renewal fees in connection with Zuffa's UFC subscription offerings.
[GN]
[*] Appellate Court Allows UK Trucks Claim to Continue
------------------------------------------------------
Sarina Williams and Ben Ball of Global Competition Review report
that the Court of Appeal has upheld the Competition Appeal
Tribunal's (CAT) opt-in collective proceedings order (CPO) in a
trucks cartel UK class action. The CAT appointed the Road Haulage
Association (RHA) as the representative of a class comprising UK
buyers of new and used trucks. The RHA is seeking compensation for
increased prices that those class members allegedly paid as a
result of truck manufacturers' unlawful price co-ordination.
In its first instance decision, the CAT favoured the RHA's CPO
application over a rival one brought by UK Trucks Claim (UKTC). The
key reasons why the CAT chose the RHA were:
-- the RHA's proposed class members included purchasers of used and
new trucks;
-- the RHA wished to bring proceedings on an opt-in basis. That
meant that it would have access to class members' data, which would
strengthen its claim. In contrast, the UKTC proposed that the claim
proceed on an opt-out basis; and
-- the methodology that the RHA put forward for calculating loss
was more conventional and well established than the UKTC's novel
methodology.
Issues on appeal
The main issue on appeal was whether the CAT was wrong to certify
the RHA as the representative of both new and used truck buyers.
The UKTC and two of the truck manufacturers argued that there was a
conflict of interest between those two sub-classes, which meant
that the CAT had erred in its appointment.
The Court of Appeal held that while conflict of interest existed,
it could be managed through information barriers and separate
funders and representation (including solicitors, counsel and
experts). Accordingly, the RHA was allowed to continue as the sole
class representative.
The Court of Appeal also dealt briefly with three more minor
matters.
First, the UKTC sought to challenge the CAT's preference of the
RHA's opt-in proceedings over its own opt-out CPO application. The
court said that all of UKTC's arguments sought to challenge the
CAT's decisions on matters that were "quintessentially
multifactorial assessments by a specialist tribunal with which this
Court would not interfere unless there were an error of law". As
such, the UKTC was refused permission to appeal on this point.
The UKTC also wanted to argue that the CAT should have stayed,
rather than dismissed, its CPO application, but the court saw this
as a case management matter that the UKTC had failed to deal with
rather than a matter for appeal.
Two other truck manufacturers challenged the CAT's alternative
conclusions that the UKTC had brought a workable CPO application,
arguing that the UKTC had failed to come up with a methodology for
modelling truck buyers' pass-on to their customers. They also
submitted that the UKTC's novel methodology for establishing loss
was implausible. These were both moot points because the UKTC's
application had been unsuccessful. Nonetheless, the court confirmed
that the CAT had not made any error of law. In particular, the
court said that:
-- the CAT was entitled to certify an application that had not
grappled with downstream pass-on by the class because that was
something that the CAT could deal with through case management;
and
-- that the CAT's decision about the methodology's plausibility was
not an appropriate matter for appeal.
As a preliminary matter, the court also considered whether the
correct route for the challenge was by way of appeal or judicial
review. As in Evans, which was handed down at the same time, the
court decided that substantially all of the issues could proceed by
way of appeal because they concerned the CAT's refusal to certify
the UKTC's proceedings in whole or in part.
The RHA cannot stay (in) neutral
The conflict of interest between new and used truck purchasers
arose because one of the ways that the latter were said to have
suffered loss was because new truck purchasers would (on resale)
have sought to pass on the inflated costs of their trucks to used
truck buyers.
The CAT concluded that this could be managed by the RHA following
its economic expert's advice as to whether the overcharge had in
fact been passed on to used truck purchasers. The RHA would also
have to communicate to class members that this was what it was
going to do. Following that communication, the CAT said that class
members that opted in to the claim could be taken to have consented
to the RHA acting against their interests if so advised.
The UKTC and truck manufacturers claimed that this conflict of
interest meant that the RHA's appointment did not satisfy the
statutory test of being "just and reasonable". The truck
manufacturers also argued that the combined claim did not meet the
suitability and common issues requirements for certification as a
class action.
The Court of Appeal partially overruled the CAT on this point,
holding that case management steps were insufficient to manage
conflict between class members' interests. It said that the CAT's
solution was inappropriate because the expert's answer would be
highly sensitive to assumptions and data input.
However, the court did reject the UKTC's submission that two class
representatives would be needed to manage the conflict. This was a
"recipe for confusion and unnecessary expense", particularly where
one class representative was acting on an opt-out basis while the
other was acting on an opt-in basis. Instead, the conflict could be
managed by the RHA maintaining separate teams, divided by an
information barrier, for each sub-class of truck purchasers. In
doing so, the court confirmed that a class representative like the
RHA did need to act in class members' best interests where there
was an identifiable conflict (although it recognised that there
would be some situations where a class representative can act in
the majority's best interest without significantly harming the
minority).
The RHA would also need to appoint separate solicitors, counsel and
experts for each sub-class. The court also held that different
funders would need to finance the sub-classes because, for example,
of a funder's discretion to fund an appeal, which it may be
incentivised not to do where one sub-class had won on a point at
the other's expense (since the allocation of damages between the
sub-classes may be a zero-sum game from the funder's perspective).
Analysis
The Court of Appeal's decision shows that the opt-in regime lives
on, despite its parallel decision in Evans to overturn the CAT's
decision (which found the claim should be certified on an opt-in
basis only) to certify the FX class on an opt-out basis. The
parallel decisions suggest that an opt-in claim will be preferred
where the PCR can show it is practicable and viable to proceed on
an opt-in basis (17,500 class members had signed up or registered
an interest with the RHA before the CAT hearing), whereas an
opt-out claim will be preferred where an opt-in claim wouldn't be
viable (the PCRs in FX showed the claims would stall if made on an
opt-in basis).
The Court of Appeal's decision about how the RHA needs to manage
its conflict of interests sets out a more formal approach than the
CAT's and makes clear that this was a fundamental issue that needed
to be considered at the certification stage. However, the court's
solution, while pragmatic in allowing the RHA to continue its
claim, does raise further questions (and further costs). For
example, it is unclear how this approach will work for class
members that purchased both new and used trucks – will they fall
into both sub-classes, or will there need to be an early
determination as to which sub-class is most suitable? What will
happen in other cases where a PCR seeks to include class members
from different levels of the supply chain but is unable to put
information barriers in place? Our prediction is that there is more
to come with regard to the question of conflicts.
The court's judgment also showed that it seeks to support the CAT's
authority by emphatically dismissing the parties' attempts to
challenge other discretionary and case management matters. The
court emphasised that these were not properly the subject of
appeals or judicial review and refused to grant permission for
appeals on these points.
This appears to reflect a view that CPO certification jurisprudence
is beginning to settle down. In light of its judgments in this case
and in Evans, the Court of Appeal has indicated that it hopes that
the CAT will be able to hold shorter hearings and produce shorter
rulings on such certifications in the future.
The road ahead for the RHA
In the present case, however, the Supreme Court's recent finding
that the RHA's litigation funding agreement needed to satisfy the
statutory requirements of a damages-based agreement means that the
class representative will need to restructure or comply with those
requirements before the case can move forward. With the possibility
of that outcome in mind, as well as the need for the RHA to make
arrangements to manage the conflict of interest between new and
used truck purchasers, the appellate courts seem to have put the
brakes on the proceedings for the time being. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***