/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230929.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 29, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 196 Headlines ABC PHONES: Court OK's Voluntary Dismissal, Solorio Case Closed ACH FOOD: Fact Discovery in Heredia Due April 8, 2024 ADVANTAGE PLUS: Court Preliminarily Certifies Garrett Class Action AGRO RESEARCH: Nov. 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought ALLY FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Pay-to-Pay Fees, Sheridan Says AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended Oct. 13 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Staff, White Says AMERIVENTS CATERING: Kromah Sues Over Retained Tips Under FLSA ANGEL TREE: Fails to Pay Drivers, Trimmers' OT Wages, Mendez Says ARBOR REALTY: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement BATTERIES PLUS: Bross Has Until Feb. 16, 2024 to File Class Cert BED BATH: Fails to Monitor Prudence of Plan's Investment, Suit Says BERKELEY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Apartment Registration Fees BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Police Dep't Faces Racial Profiling Class Suit BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Abernathy Files Discrimination Class Action BRADY MARTZ: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Quaife Suit Alleges BRAUNFOTEL AND FRENDEL: Faces Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection BROOKDALE SENIOR: Davenport Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BROOKDALE SENIOR: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by Oct. 19 CABBAD FAMILY: Gachuz Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages CALIFORNIA: Agaton Sues Girardi, Law Firm for Unethical Conduct CAPITAL PLUS: Greathouse Loses Class Certification Bid CENTERRA GROUP: Court Stays Proceedings in Monarrez CINEMARK USA: Discloses Customers Info to Meta, Marelich Alleges COOK COUNTY, IL: Averts Correctional Officers' Class Action Suit CS DISCO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 20 CVS PHARMACY: Faces Jordan Suit Over Pink Eye Drops' False Ads DELTA AIRLINES: Court Certifies Antitrust Class Action Suit DEUTSCHE BANK: David Boies Hikes Hourly Billing Rate Amid Suit DRINK NECTAR: Hydration Powders' Label, "False," Scheibe Alleges DSM-FIRMENICH AG: Hogan Hits Fragrance Market Price-fixing EARGO INC: Fazio Securities Class Action Suit Hearing Set EL MONUMENTAL: Corsino Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages ENTREE CORP: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. EXTRAORDINARY FLOORING: Hunter Alleges OT, Recordkeeping Violations F21 OPCO: Moll Sues Over Unprotected Personal Health Info FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition, Wallace Suit Says FREEPORT PANCAKE: Court Approves Wage Class Action Settlement GB PROVISIONS: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum Wages, Lupton Says GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevrolet Traverse SUVs GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Clancy Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Guzman Claims GOOGLE LLC: High Court Set to Rule on Settlement in October GURUSHIVAY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Alleges HAND HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Servers Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA HERTZ CORP: Fails to Pay Manager's OT Wages, Maharaj Alleges HKE EXPRESS: Dominguez Suit Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation HOMEADVISOR: Faces Fraud Charges Over Customer Leads INCOMM PAYMENTS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Visa Debit Cards INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 1 J. W. JUNG SEED: Frizzell Sues Over Managers' Unpaid Wages JOHN HANCOCK: Zaben Sues Over Excessive Insurance Cost Charges JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baughman Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cronin Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McWhite Sues Over Sudafed PE Tablet False Ads JOHNSON & JOHNSON: PE Drugs "Ineffective," Thorns Suit Claims JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Reinkraut Sues Over Sudafed PE Tablet False Ads JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tuominen Sues Over Sudafed PE's Deceptive Ads JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wright Sues Over Sale of Ineffective PE Drugs KENVUE INC: Faces Class Action Over Sudafed Decongestant Efficacy KENVUE INC: Sudafed PE Decongestant is Ineffective, McIntyre Says KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Vehicle Engine Defects KIMCO STAFFING: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California KIMCO STAFFING: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Pittman Alleges KOPPERS RAILROAD: Faces Brock FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LIV UNLTD: Williams Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Porters LOS TRES: Fails to Pay Waitress Minimum & OT Wages, Jumbo Says LOUISIANA: Subjects Prisoners to Inhumane Condition, VOTE Claims LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov 14 LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Mclemore Suit Over 8.11% Stock Price Drop MAPFRE USA: Conway Sues Over Disclosure of Drivers' License Info MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Warns HR of No-Poach Agreements Amid Suit MERRILL LYNCH: Antonio Pereira Sues Over Lender Liability META PLATFORMS: Collect Data Without Consent, Dye Suit Alleges META PLATFORMS: Collects Non-Users' Health Info, E.H. Suit Alleges META PLATFORMS: Faces LLaMA Infringement Class Action MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Sues Over Personal Info Negligent Handling MIDFIRST BANK: Dudurkaewa Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma MIGHTY CRAB: Faces Chi Ming Yau Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y. MILANO BROTHERS: Bueno Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MOBILE MINI: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Burnett Antitrust Class Suit for $55M NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 2nd Cir. NAVISTAR CANADA: Agrees to Settle MaxxForce Engines Suit for $14.5M NETWORK SOLUTIONS: 40 Acres Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir. NEW MEXICO: NMHSD Files 10th Cir. Appeal NEW YORK LIFE: LCG Seeks Confidential Docs Maintained Under Seal NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Dismiss Held in Abeyance NORTHSTAR ENERGY: Hamilton Seeks Piping Designers' OT Wages ONTARIO: Court Endorses $33MM EMDC Class Action Settlement OPENAI LP: Web Scraping Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed PANERA LLC: Luna Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities Under NYLL PEACOCK TV: Illegally Auto Renews Subscriptions, Winston Claims PFIZER INC: Riccio Sues Over Products False Maximum Strength Ads PREMIER NUTRITION: Appeals Attorney's Fees Ruling in Montera Suit PRIME HYDRATION: Faces Class Action Over PRIME Sports Drinks PRIMIS BANK: Kline Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Tlaib Suit Over Sale of Ineffective Drugs PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Cooper Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info QUEBEC: Sued Over COVID-19 Fatalities, Lack of Response Planning QUINOA CORPORATION: Heyning Sues Over Mislabeled Pasta Product RAD POWER: Faces Mason Class Suit Over E-Bikes' Defective Design RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Settles Commission Class Action for $55 Million RELIANT TERMITE: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Roberts Says ROSEBOX LLC: Fails to Pay Florists' OT Wages, Marquez Claims ROTOCO LLC: Faces Trcka Wage-and-Hour Suit in California SALESFORCE INC: Conceals True Cost of Subscription, Roy Alleges SANZ CONSTRUCTION: Marcatoma Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid OT SECURITY CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Ortiz Says SENSIO INC: Gibson-Roberts Sues Over Defective Pressure Cookers SOSA CONTRACTORS: Guerra Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Zide Alleges STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Missing Fruit STREAMLINE BUILDERS: Faces Aldana Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. TANDEM DIABETES: Faces Lowe Suit Over Share Price Drop THERMO FISHER: Dimou Sues Over Breach Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA TMC HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Williams Says TOYOTA MOTOR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges UKG INC: KPC Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set October 3 UNITEDLEX: Faces Class Action Over March Data Breach UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Suarez Alleges Failure to Secure Info USAA GENERAL: Tarkett Sues Over Unpaid Equity Surplus Amount VIDEOTRON LTEE: Faces Class Suits in Quebec Over Unlawful Charges WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Deceptive Hydrogen Peroxide WELLS FARGO: Wins $800 Million Class Suit Over Liquidation WORLD OIL: Fails to Pay All OT Hours Worked, Mercado Suit Alleges YARDI SYSTEMS: Duffy Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy YOUR WIRELESS: Faces Claudio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. Z & S ENTERPRISES: Khan Seeks to Recover Clerks' Minimum & OT Wages Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Committee Calls Out J&J's Ch. 11 Efforts ********* ABC PHONES: Court OK's Voluntary Dismissal, Solorio Case Closed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRISCILLA SOLORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01051-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order directing clerk of Court to close case and adjust the docket to reflect Voluntary dismissal pursuant to rule 41(a)(1) of the federal Rules of civil procedure. The action was removed from Kern County Superior Court on July 30, 2020. The parties filed a notice of settlement on August 7, 2023. In light of the parties' filing that is consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the Court's finding above that under the circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of the dismissal, this action has been terminated by operation of law without further order of the Court. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). ABC was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing two-way radiotelephone communication services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46dcIRE at no extra charge.[CC] ACH FOOD: Fact Discovery in Heredia Due April 8, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARIDAD HEREDIA, et al., v. ACH FOOD COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-05366-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered a civil case discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join additional Oct. 9, 2023 parties shall be filed by: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed Sept. 28, 2023 R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed by: -- Fact Discovery: April 8, 2024 -- Initial requests for production of Sept. 28, 2023 documents shall be served by: ACH produces and markets cooking oils, spices and seasonings, and baking ingredients. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45SrLQT at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANTAGE PLUS: Court Preliminarily Certifies Garrett Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cecil C Garrett, v. Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-02082-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order preliminarily certifying lawsuit, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following class of plaintiffs with respect to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit: "All natural persons who were the subject: (1) of a consumer report furnished by Defendant Advantage Plus Credit Reporting Incorporated to a third party from December 8, 2019, through November 2021; (2) where the consumer report contained a notation that the consumer was deceased from at least one of Experian, Equifax, or Trans Union; and (3) where at least one other of Experian, Equifax, or Trans Union did not contain a deceased notation." The Court appoints as Class Representative: Plaintiff Cecil C. Garrett. The Court appoints as Class Counsel: E. Michelle Drake and Joseph C. Hashmall, Berger Montague PC, 1229 Tyler St. NE, Ste. 205, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Court appoints as Settlement Administrators: E. Michelle Drake and Joseph C. Hashmall, Berger Montague PC, 1229 Tyler St. NE, Ste. 205, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Advantage is a "consumer reporting agency" which assembles consumer credit information "for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zpq8rA at no extra charge.[CC] AGRO RESEARCH: Nov. 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS ROMERO; KEN BERNARDS; PETER HOFFMANN; LUCIA HOSSFELD; TIM PORTER; HOSSFELD VINEYARDS INC.; HOSSFELD VINEYARDS WINE CO.; and PORTER FAMILY VINEYARDS, LLC, individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AGRO RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL LLC; ANDAMAN AG CORPORATION; WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY, LLC.; SENTINEL BIOLOGICS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00518-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties conferred and agreed to request the following amendment to the Scheduling Order: Deadline Current Proposed Pltfs. To Complete Limited N/A Oct. 30, 2023 Discovery as to ARI’s Ability to Satisfy a Judgment Pltfs. to File Class Cert Sept. 7, 2023 Nov. 30, 2023 Motion ARI to File Class Cert Sept. 21, 2023 Dec. 14, 2023 Opposition Pltfs. To File Class Cert Sept. 28, 2023 Dec. 21, 2023 Reply Trial June 24, 2024 No Change A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4676ZwM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert S. Arns, Esq. Jonathan E. Davis, Esq. Shounak S. Dharap, Esq. Katherine A. Rabago, Esq. ARNS DAVIS LAW 515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com jed@arnslaw.com ssd@arnslaw.com kar@arnslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kelly M. Breen, Esq. DOWNEY BRAND LLP Sacramento 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 444.1000 Facsimile: (916) 444-2100 ALLY FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Pay-to-Pay Fees, Sheridan Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D. W.Va., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's collection of pay-to-pay fees to West Virginia borrowers. According to the complaint, Ally regularly passes its collection costs for monthly loan payments to borrowers when they make their payments by telephone or online ("Pay-to-Pay transactions"). However, collection of pay-to-pay fees in these transactions plainly violates West Virginia debt collection law (CCPA). The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated putative class members to recover the unlawfully charged pay-to-pay fees and to enjoin the Defendant from continuing to charge these unlawful fees. Ally Financial, Inc. is a financial services firm, with its principal offices at 500 Woodward Avenue, 10th Floor, Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 274-9331 E-mail: PKipnis@baileyglasser.com - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: JMarshall@baileyglasser.com AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended Oct. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM KYDC LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechma entered and order on stipulated motion to extend certain class certification-related deadlines: (1) The parties' initial submissions under Sept. 14, 2023 LCR 37 shall be served on: (2) The parties' responses shall be Sept. 21, 2023 served on: (3) The parties' replies shall be Sept. 25, 2023 served on: (4) The parties will file the joint Sept. 25, 2023 motion with the Court on: (5) The deadline to complete class Oct. 6, 2023 Discovery: (6) The deadline for Plaintiffs' Class Oct. 13, 2023 Certification Motion (7) The deadline for the Defendants' Dec. 15, 2023 Response to the Motion for Class Certification: (8) Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply: Jan. 15, 2024 Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sZqJ79 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kalish, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 826-5354 E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com - and - Brian J. Lawler, Esq. PILOT LAW, P.C. 4632 Mt. Gaywas Dr. San Diego, CA 92117 Telephone: (619) 255-2398 E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com - and - Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW, APC 101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - and - Kevin L. Wilson, Esq. KEVIN WILSON LAW PLLC 3110 Horton Avenue Louisville, KY 40220 Telephone: (502) 276-5050 E-mail: kevin@klwilsonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew E. Moriarty, Esq. Heather L. Shook, Esq. Shannon McDermott, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: AMoriarty@perkinscoie.com HShook@perkinscoie.com SMcDermott@perkinscoie.com - and - Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. Brian A. Richman, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 Facsimile: (202) 467-0539 E-mail: JSchwartz@gibsondunn.com BRichman@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, report that American Airlines Inc. is facing class action claims that it fails to engage in an interactive process with employees with disabilities, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lead plaintiff Santrise White alleges that American also refuses to accommodate, impermissibly terminates, and fails to rehire employees with disabilities, according to the complaint filed on Sept. 18 in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. White alleges that she suffers from a disability that causes swelling in her legs due to a build-up of lymph fluid. The airline ignored her request to wear tennis shoes. [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Staff, White Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANTRISE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01164 (W.D. Tex., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. According to the complaint, the Defendant's policies and procedures violated the ADA by refusing to engage in its own interactive processes with its employees with disabilities, refusing to accommodate employees with disabilities, impermissibly terminating employees with disabilities, and failing to rehire employees with disabilities. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees seek monetary, injunctive, and/or equitable relief, including compensatory and putative damages from American Airlines as a result of its unlawful acts. American Airlines, Inc. is an airline company headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com AMERIVENTS CATERING: Kromah Sues Over Retained Tips Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CECE KROMAH, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. AMERIVENTS CATERING LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08152 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023) sues the Defendant for unlawfully retaining gratuities under the Fair Labor Standards Act and asserts on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current and former employees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and (b), that the Defendant willfully violated the New York Labor Law by: unlawfully retaining gratuities, failing to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday, and failing to provide an accurate wage statement. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee and paid her an hourly rate plus a minimal share of tips. The Plaintiff's primary duties involve taking drink orders from customers, fulfilling the orders, and handling payments from customers including cash and credit tips for her service. Pursuant to the Defendant's policy, the Plaintiff and other employees pool their tips, which are paid out daily at the end of each shift by a supervisor. The Defendant's supervisors allegedly receive an equal/full portion of the pooled tips at the expense of the fair disbursement of tips to bartenders. For example, at the Kentucky Derby in 2023, the Plaintiff received more than $700.00 in tips from customers for her service, yet was only tipped out $40.00 for that day's work. From speaking with them and observing them, the Plaintiff knows that other employees of the Defendant, like her, had their tips unlawfully withheld by the Defendant, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender since 2020. The Defendant provides hospitality staff, such as bartenders, to event organizers in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Frank J. Tantone, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com frank@lipskylowe.com ANGEL TREE: Fails to Pay Drivers, Trimmers' OT Wages, Mendez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALVARO MENDEZ, JOSE CASTANEDA, and JENCER CARILLO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANGEL TREE SERVICE LLC (ATS) and SEBASTIAN MEJIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-20420 (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2023) sues the Defendants for failing to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been intentional, willful and in bad faith, and has caused significant damages to the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. Mr. Mendez and Mr. Castaneda typically worked approximately 72 hours per week. Mr. Mendez was compensated at a fixed hourly rate of $35 per hour for all hours worked, including those over 40 per week. Mr. Castaneda was compensated at a fixed hourly rate of $18 per hour for all hours worked, including those over 40 per week, the lawsuit claims. The Defendants also reported fraudulent information to the IRS in violation of 26 U.S.C. section 7434 by filing W-2 Forms with false information regarding the wages paid to the Plaintiffs, thereby decreasing Defendants' tax liability. As the Defendants did not have a good faith basis to believe that their failure to pay overtime wages complied with the law, the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages equal to 100% of their unpaid wages, added the lawsuit. Mr. Mendez was employed by the Defendants as a driver and trimmer from June 2021 until September 2022. Mr. Castaneda was employed by the Defendant as a trimmer from September 2020 until September 2021. ATS provides tree removal, trimming, stump removal, and other landscaping services to residential and commercial locations throughout New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Trinidad-Lira, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 E-mail: jtrinidadlira@katzmelinger.com ARBOR REALTY: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA DE MARYLAND, INC., et al, v. ARBOR REALTY TRUST, INC., et al, Case No. 8:21-cv-01778-DKC (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs Anita Ramirez, Ramiro Lopez, Ervin Obdulio Rodas, Jesus Gonzalez, Maria Arely Bonilla, Maria Lara, and Norma Guadalupe Beltran file an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel, certification of the class for settlement only and setting a final approval hearing and notice in this action. Arbor is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct lender, providing loan origination and servicing for multifamily, seniors housing, healthcare and other diverse commercial real estate assets. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EFSfJm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Nace, Esq. Zachary Kelsay, Esq. NIDEL & NACE, P.L.L.C. One Church Street, Suite 802 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone:(202) 780-5153 E-mail: jon@nidellaw.com zach@nidellaw.com - and - P. Joseph Donahue, Esq. THE DONAHUE LAW FIRM, LLC 18 West Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 280-2023 E-mail: pjd@thedonahuelawfirm.com BATTERIES PLUS: Bross Has Until Feb. 16, 2024 to File Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTNEY BROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BATTERIES PLUS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01468-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order amending scheduling order as follows: Event Current Deadline Amended Deadline Discovery Deadline October 2, 2023 December 4, 2023 Motions to Compel 45 days after service Motions on any Discovery response currently served discovery must be filed by October 20, 2023. Plaintiff's Expert October 16, 2023 December 15, 2023 Witness Disclosure Defendant's Expert November 16, 2023 January 19, 2024 Witness Disclosure Motion for Class December 15, 2023 February 16, 2024 Certification Final Lists of May 5, 2024 June 24, 2024 Witnesses & Exhibits Motions for Summary March 15, 2024 May 10, 2024 Judgment Batteries Plus manufactures and distributes a range of batteries and bulbs to its clients. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sYQogc at no extra charge.[CC] BED BATH: Fails to Monitor Prudence of Plan's Investment, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL HARVEY and LELA LAPLANTE, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the BED BATH & BEYOND, INC. (BBB) 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC. 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE and LAURA CROSSEN, Case No. 2:23-cv-20376 (D.N.J., Sept. 14, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to monitor the prudence of the Plan's investment in the MassMutual Guaranteed Interest Account (GIA), certified false and misleading statements concerning the risk of loss to Plan participants invested in the GIA, and failed to take action to avoid the multi-million dollar losses that followed, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant Committee failed to satisfy its duty of prudence pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a)(1) with respect to monitoring the Plan's investment in the GIA and timely removing the GIA from the Plan, resulting in losses to the Plan and the individual accounts of the Plaintiffs. The Plan was a defined contribution retirement plan sponsored by BBB. The purpose of the Plan was to provide retirement benefits to BBB employees by allowing them to defer wages pre-tax and invest in an array of investment options selected and monitored by the Committee. BBB filed for bankruptcy on April 23, 2023. BBB's bankruptcy triggered termination of the MassMutual Contract and a market value adjustment to participant account balances in the Plan. The market value adjustment was substantial and negative, wiping out around 10% of the value of participants' principal preservation accounts, totaling more than $5 million, the lawsuit claims. Had the Defendant Committee undertaken this prudent process, it would have terminated the MassMutual Contract by notice and avoided the risk of Plan losses that could result from BBB's bankruptcy and a decrease in value of the GIA's underlying portfolio. BBB terminated the Plan effective August 1, 2023. All participant balances will be distributed from the Plan by October 16, 2023. The Plaintiffs seek recovery for losses to the Plan due to Defendants' fiduciary breaches and equitable relief on behalf of the Plan as a whole. The Plaintiffs are adequate to bring this derivative action on behalf of the Plan, and their interests are aligned with the Plan's other participants and beneficiaries. The Plaintiffs do not have any conflicts of interest with any participants or beneficiaries that would impair or impede their ability to pursue this action. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in ERISA litigation and intend to pursue this action vigorously on behalf of the Plan. Plaintiff Paul Harvey was a longtime BBB employee who participated in the Plan. Around 50% of his Plan account was invested in the GIA. In August 2023, his GIA balance suffered around a 10% loss. Plaintiff Harvey's distribution from the Plan would be higher if not for the Defendants failures to monitor Plan investments, report accurate information, and take action to avoid losses to the Plan. Plaintiff Lela LaPlante was a BBB employee who participated in the Plan. A portion of her Plan account was invested in the GIA. In August 2023, her GIA balance suffered around a 10% loss. Plaintiff LaPlante's distribution from the Plan would be higher if not for the Defendants' failures to monitor Plan investments, report accurate information, and take action to avoid losses to the Plan. The Defendant Committee was the fiduciary designated by Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., the sponsor of the Plan, to select and monitor the Plan investments. The members of the Defendant Committee were high-ranking employees of BBB.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 967-5377 Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com medelman@forthepeople.com - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 729 N. Washington Ave, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com BERKELEY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Apartment Registration Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- TheRealDeal reports that Alan Wofsy & Associates has challenged Berkeley's apartment registration fees. The San Francisco-based arts publisher and owner of a 26-unit apartment complex in northwest Berkeley has filed a class-action lawsuit to challenge the city's Measure MM, which forces apartment owners to pay yearly registration fees, the San Francisco Business Times reported. Wofsy and his firm allege the fees implemented as part of Measure MM, voted into law in 2020, violate the state's constitution. It seeks an injunction on the collection of Measure MM registration fees, as well as unspecified damages, litigation costs and attorneys fees, plus a refund of all fees paid by landlords under Measure MM since its enactment Berkeley had previously required landlords of rent-controlled apartments to pay the annual, per-unit fees. But the voter-approved measure amended the city's rent-control ordinance to add between 4,000 and 5,000 units once exempt from that requirement, including single-family homes, condominiums and apartments built after June 30, 1980. Landlords for the added housing have shelled out $150 per unit a year for fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, according to the lawsuit. Fees for non-exempt landlords have since risen to $178 per apartment. Alan Wofsy & Associates argues those rates as unreasonable and more than needed to cover the cost of Measure MM, which also bars evictions of Berkeley renters for nonpayment during state- or local-level states of emergency. Measure MM also limited a rent-control exemption for accessory dwelling units, unless the ADU is the only one on the property of an owner-occupied single-family home. The complaint alleges the fees violate a clause in California's constitution. Wofsy's lawsuit was filed on behalf of "hundreds, if not thousands" of property owners who have been required to pay MM's registration fees. Under Measure MM, owners of exempt apartments — including units owned by nonprofits and units leased to Section 8 tenants — don't pay registration fees, and owners of affordable units that don't qualify for exemption pay $37 per apartment per year. In 1998, Wofsy bought three mid-century cottages at Hearst Commons at 1146-1160 Hearst Avenue, whose studios rented in 2021 for between $1,375 and $1,600, according to a rental listing. The owner of a fine arts publishing company in San Francisco owns properties in Oakland and in 1989 sued the city of Berkeley over a proposed residential project, and in 2000 sued the city over its rent-control law. [GN] BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Police Dep't Faces Racial Profiling Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Washington, writing for The Roto, reports that it probably won't surprise anyone (Black) to hear that police in the wealthy community of Beverly Hills aren't the friendliest to Black people. But the allegations in a new lawsuit still might surprise (and horrify) you. The lawsuit is accusing Beverly Hills law enforcement officers of racially profiling nearly 1,100 Black drivers during traffic stops. The case is being spearheaded by civil rights Attorney Ben Crump, who called the stops "racial profiling 101." The city is denying that racial profiling is taking place. "The City of Beverly Hills is an international destination that always welcomes visitors from across the country and around the world," they wrote in a statement to NBC News. "The role of the Beverly Hills Police Department is to enforce the law, regardless of race." Despite the city's protestations, Crump and his team are pushing forward with the lawsuit. In total, the aggrieved parties are asking for $500 million. [GN] BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Abernathy Files Discrimination Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES M. ABERNATHY, HEATHER HUTTON, and KERRIE INGLE, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00322 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 7, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought against the Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to remedy the illegal discrimination to which its employees who requested religious accommodations from Defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate have had to endure. According to the complaint, the Defendant decided that unvaccinated employees -- even those who Defendant admits have sincerely held religious objections to the vaccine -- were to be terminated from their employment despite their sincerely held religious beliefs and the reasonableness of their accommodation requests. The Defendant's discriminatory actions left Plaintiffs and those similarly situated with the formidable task of choosing between their faith and their jobs. By failing to accommodate Plaintiffs' religious beliefs and then firing Plaintiffs, Defendant willfully discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their religious beliefs, which is a blatant violation of Title VII, says the suit. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc. is an insurance company offering, inter alia, individual and family health insurance plans, Medicare and Medicaid plans, dental and vision plans, and employer and group plans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse D. Nelson, Esq. Clint J. Coleman, Esq. NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 10263 Kingston Pike Knoxville, TN 37922 Telephone: (865) 383-1053 E-mail: jesse@nlgattorneys.com clint@NLGattorneys.com BRADY MARTZ: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Quaife Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Quaife, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Brady Martz & Associates, P.C., Case No. 3:23-cv-00176-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., Sept. 15, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information, including individual's names, date of birth, driver’s license or state ID numbers, health insurance information, medical information, and/or Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant breached its numerous duties and obligations by failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices and federal and state laws and regulations governing data security; failing to properly train its employees on data security measures and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized third parties accessing its system ; and failing to timely notify the impacted Class Members. On November 19, 2022 the Defendant has confirmed that a data breach had occurred approximately five days earlier According to Defendant's reports, as many as 53,524 or more individuals may have had their PII obtained by unauthorized third parties as part of the Data Breach. The Defendant not only failed to prevent the Data Breach, but after discovering the Data Breach in November 2022, Defendant waited almost a year to report it to states' Attorney Generals, and to affected individuals such as the Plaintiff and members of the Class, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result of Defendant's delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant and imminent risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes because of the Defendant's negligence. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law. Mr. Quaife currently resides in Moorhead, Minnesota. He received the Defendant's September 8, 2023, Notice of Data Breach letter nearly eleven months after the Data Breach was detected. The Plaintiff's PII was provided to the Defendant through his previous employment as a contract Security/Event Ambassador with the City of Fargo, North Dakota in 2015. The Defendant offers financial and business advisory related services, including audit and financial guidance, bookkeeping and payroll assistance, and trust and wealth management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Haider, Esq. SCHNEIDER LAW FIRM 815 3rd Ave. S. Fargo, ND 58103 Telephone: (701) 235-4481 Facsimile: (701) 235-1107 E-mail: scott@schneiderlawfirm.com - and - Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Joe E. Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com BRAUNFOTEL AND FRENDEL: Faces Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Gibb of Accounts Recovery reports that a law firm in New York is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly sending a letter to an individual attempting to collect on an unpaid debt without making the required disclosures that the communication was coming from a debt collector and threatening to file a lawsuit 18 days after the letter was sent to the plaintiff. A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-07763 or by clicking here. A copy of the letter in question can be accessed by clicking here. The letter, which includes the letterhead for the law firm at the top, is dated August 7, 2023 and informs that plaintiff that it has been retained by Westrock Industries for work that was done to the plaintiff's pool/spa, in the amount of $872.42. The letter includes two invoices for different services that were performed, as well as a photo of the plaintiff's equipment. The letter informs the plaintiff that he has not yet paid for the work that was performed and that a demand for payment was being made. The letter informs the plaintiff that unless payment of the debt is received by August 25, a lawsuit was going to be filed against him. The complaint accuses the collector of not including any of the required disclosures that would normally accompany a collection letter sent by a collector to a consumer. The letter also failed to include an itemization of the debt, which is especially important because the total of the two invoices included with the letter was $396.65 and the letter does not explain why the amount being sought it more than double the amount in the invoices. The complaint also accuses the defendant of overshadowing the 30-day window for the consumer to dispute the debt by threatening a lawsuit before that time had expired. The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. The complaint seeks to include anyone else who received initial collection communications from the defendant without an itemized breakdown of the debt and the required dispute and verification disclosures, while also not disclosing that the communication was from a debt collector. [GN] BROOKDALE SENIOR: Davenport Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lillian Davenport, on behalf of the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., Emeritus Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0009791 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 13, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Brookdale Senior Living -- https://www.brookdale.com/en.html -- is one of the largest senior living community organizations located in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by Oct. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER, et al., v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order modifying case schedule as follows: (1) Unless the parties stipulate to the filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs shall file and serve their motion for leave to file their Fourth Amended Complaint on or before October 19, 2023. (2) The Plaintiffs shall file and serve their motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification on or before October 19, 2023. (3) The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification is due on or before November 9, 2023. (4) The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification is due on or before November 20, 2023. (5) The other pretrial dates and deadlines are set as follows: a. February 1, 2024 -- fact discovery cut-off b. April 1, 2024 -- expert discovery cut-off c. May 16, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. -- dispositive motions hearing deadline (6) The pretrial conference in this case is scheduled for August 13, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. (7) Trial is set for September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. Brookdale offers a wide range of senior living and retirement communities and senior care options. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46ddHRz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Guy B. Wallace, Esq. Mark T. Johnson, Esq. Travis C. Close, Esq. Rachel L. Steyer, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608-1863 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com tclose@schneiderwallace.com rsteyer@schneiderwallace.com - and - Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq. Jenny S. Yelin, Esq. Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Esq. Amy Xu, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com jyelin@rbgg.com bbien-kahn@rbgg.com axu@rbgg.com The Defendants are represented by: Erica Rutner, Esq. John A. Bertino, Esq. MOORE & LEE, LLP 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1980 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (703) 940-3763 Facsimile: (703) 506-2051 E-mail: e.rutner@mooreandlee.com - and - Michael D. Jacobsen, Esq. Kristina M. Launey, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: mjacobsen@seyfarth.com klauney@seyfarth.com CABBAD FAMILY: Gachuz Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL GACHUZ, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CABBAD FAMILY, LLC, PHILIP CABBAD, and ALBERT CABBAD, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06684 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023) is a class action against Defendants to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from their failure to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated minimum wages and overtime wages, failure to furnish wage notices, and failure to pay on a weekly basis. Plaintiff Gachuz was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker from April 2022 until June 8, 2023, when he was abruptly fired by Defendants. Cabbad Family, LLC is a New York Domestic Limited Liability Company, formed on December 19, 1997, for the purpose of engaging in "the management, purchase and sale of real estate properties" owned by the Cabbad Family, most of which were located on/near 5th Avenue and/or Baltic Street in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES 110 State Highway 35, Suite 10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com CALIFORNIA: Agaton Sues Girardi, Law Firm for Unethical Conduct --------------------------------------------------------------- ANA AGATON and ARTURO EMANUEL AGATON, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, TOM LAYTON, JOE DUNN, HOWARD MILLER, JOHN NOONEN, MURRAY GREENBERG, MIKE NISPEROS, RICHARD PLATEL, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 23STCV21606 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 7, 2023) arises from State Bar's decades of shielding and protecting Tom Girardi and his firm, Girardi Keese, regardless of their alleged blatant and constant criminal activities as well as illegal and unethical conduct. On October 11, 2009, a six-year-old boy, Arturo Agaton, Jr., succumbed to brain cancer caused by exposure to excessive levels of hexavalent chromium (chromium 6) released into the air where he lived in Riverside, California. Arturo Jr.'s death was linked to a cement company named TXI Industries, who had been emitting excessive levels of chromium 6 for years. The loss was devastating to Arturo's parents, Ana and Arturo, Sr. Class action lawsuits followed against TXI, and Ana and Arturo, Sr. joined the suit filed by attorney Tom Girardi and his firm, Girardi Keese, on October 8, 2008. On September 25, 2015, Girardi announced the settlement of the TXI Industries litigation for $31 million. According to the complaint, Girardi never paid the Agatons their share of the TXI settlement proceeds or, upon information and belief, any other TXI Plaintiffs. The complaint does not seek redress or include any claims or collection theories against TXI. Rather, this case exposes the rampant corruption at the State Bar of California and targets the incestuous relationship between Tom Girardi and the Girardi Keese law firm on the one hand, and the State Bar of California and its employees and staff on the other hand. This relationship allowed Girardi and Girardi Keese to steal millions from their clients (like the Agatons) and from referral lawyers, while Girardi showered his State Bar connections with cash, gifts, jewelry, meals at expensive clubs and restaurants, private jet transportation, employment at his law firm, trips to Las Vegas, and more, says the suit. The State Bar of California acts as the administrative arm of the California Supreme Court in all matters related to attorney admission and discipline in California. The individual Defendants are State Bar officials.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Osborn, Esq OSBORN LAW P.C. 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 131 New York, NY 10036-7424 Telephone: (212) 725-9800 Facsimile: (212) 500-5115 CAPITAL PLUS: Greathouse Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC GREATHOUSE, ET AL., v. CAPITAL PLUS FINANCIAL, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-00686-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pittman entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: 1. Nationwide Class The Plaintiff Eric Greathouse is a citizen of Arkansas who owns an insurance inspection business. Plaintiff Tiffany Sumrall is a citizen of Texas who owns a landscaping business. Plaintiff Cori Pericho is a citizen of Hawaii who owns a messenger and delivery service. Plaintiff John Pinkney is a citizen of Texas who owns a cable communications business. Plaintiff Alicia Mena is a citizen of Arizona who owns a housecleaning business. These Plaintiffs were assigned SBA numbers by Capital Plus, but their loans remain unfunded. As a result, they collectively seek to represent a nationwide class and bring a claim for breach of contract. The Plaintiffs seek certification of this class under the following criteria: "All persons and entities in the United States and its territories Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant CPF as the lender for whom the SBA provided an SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds." 2. North Carolina Subclass Plaintiff Barbara Myles is a citizen of North Carolina who owns a business that assists independent artists. Myles was assigned an SBA number by Capital Plus, but her loan remains unfunded. Myles seeks to represent a North Carolina subclass and brings a claim under the NCUDTPA together with a breach-of-contract claim. The Plaintiffs seek certification of this subclass under the following criteria: "All persons and entities in North Carolina who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant CPF as the lender for whom the SBA provided an SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds. 3. California Subclass Lastly, Plaintiff Ernesto Covarrubias is a citizen of California who owns an auto repair business. Plaintiff Joshua Smith is also a citizen of California who owns and operates a delivery and human resource and consulting business. These Plaintiffs were also assigned SBA numbers by Capital Plus, and their loans were never funded. Covarrubias and Smith seek to represent a California subclass and bring a claim under the UCL together with a breach-of-contract claim. The Plaintiffs seek certification of this subclass under the following criteria: "All persons and entities in California who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant CPF as the lender for whom the SBA provided an SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds." Capital Plus is a real estate financial institution specializing in residential mortgage lending. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PKNk0g at no extra charge.[CC] CENTERRA GROUP: Court Stays Proceedings in Monarrez --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNIE MONARREZ individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. CENTERRA GROUP, LLC, an unknown business entity; CENTERRA SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., an unknown business entity; WACKENHUT SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity; G4S GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03596-JWH-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting stipulation to: (1) stay proceedings through final approval hearing of Hines class action and PAGA settlement on January 25, 2024; and (2) extend plaintiff's Deadline to move for Reconsideration of Court's Aug. 22, 2023, order Granting in part Defendants' motion to Dismiss and/or strike Or, alternatively, file Second amended Complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZiDpSF at no extra charge.[CC] CINEMARK USA: Discloses Customers Info to Meta, Marelich Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN MARELICH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CINEMARK USA, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-04732-JD (N.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2023) alleges that the Defendant, through its website, is sharing its customers' private video viewing information without obtaining the legally required consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, Cinemark has partnered with Meta Platforms, Inc. and its "Facebook" social media platform to collect personally identifiable information each time a consumer views a video or purchases a ticket on Cinemark's website. Simultaneously, as soon as a consumer decides to visit a video page on Cinemark's website, a tiny, invisible piece of computer code called the "Meta Pixel" collects the page's address, including the video's title, and sends the information directly to Facebook, together with a digital ID that allows Facebook to match the information to the consumer's Facebook profile and all of the other information Facebook may have about that consumer's demographics, affiliations, and tastes, the lawsuit alleges. Cinemark benefits from this unauthorized disclosure by receiving enhanced analytics and advertising services, and Meta benefits by adding consumers' valuable information to its marketing databases, which it can then use to sell targeted advertisements. The only losers are the unwitting consumers. Without even realizing what is happening, they have valuable information about their tastes and private media consumption appropriated to fuel Facebook's multi-billion dollar advertising machine. By disclosing the Plaintiff's and the Class members' personally identifiable information, Cinemark violated their statutorily protected privacy rights and deprived them of the value of their private information. As a result of these violations, Cinemark is liable to Plaintiff and the Class members for liquidated damages not less than $2,500 per person, as well as punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees, says the lawsuit. Mr. Marelich has purchased tickets on Cinemark's website at www.cinemark.com to see movies at Cinemark Century at Pacific Commons, including on November 2022. He has had a Facebook account for more than ten years, and has never consented to Cinemark sharing his personal information or video-watching history with any third party. Cinemark is a movie theatre chain whose portfolio includes Cinemark Century at Pacific Commons and numerous other theatres in this district. Cinemark's website allow consumers to select the movie of their choice and to purchase tickets online for video viewing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston TX 77007-1722 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com aet@caddellchapman.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Averts Correctional Officers' Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Cook County, Ill., correctional officers seeking to be paid for time they spent cleaning themselves, their clothes, cars, and equipment, before and after shifts at the jail in response to the Covid-19 pandemic aren't entitled to pursue their claims as a class action, a federal court said. The plaintiffs, who were a proposed class of over 3,000 department of corrections officers, didn't identify a common policy requiring workers in the class to engage in cleaning activities as a condition of their employment, the opinion by Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] CS DISCO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov. 20 --------------------------------------------------------- Berman Tabacco filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against CS Disco, Inc. ("CS Disco" or the "Company") (NYSE: LAW) and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of persons and entities that purchased shares of CS Disco's common stock between July 21, 2021, and August 11, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned Gambrill v. CS Disco, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08270 (S.D.N.Y.). Discuss Your Legal Rights and Options If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff with the Court no later than November 20, 2023. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. If you purchased shares of CS Disco common stock and sustained losses and would like serve as Lead Plaintiff, please contact us here: Shareholder Contact | Berman Tabacco. About the Class Action The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, "CS Disco repeatedly touted strong growth in its revenues attributable to customer usage of its cloud-based electronic discovery platform and asserted that it had good advance visibility into changes in the demand from individual customers over time." The complaint also alleges that "[w]hile the Company also acknowledged that its rapid revenue growth was ‘usage driven' and may be subject to volatility, it did not inform investors during the Class Period that it had any indication of significant headwinds to its growth." The complaint further alleges that "[t]he truth began to emerge on August 11, 2022, when CS Disco released financial results for the second quarter of 2022 that shocked investors and analysts alike. Not only did the Company's revenue growth taper drastically [as compared to] past quarters, but the Company alerted the markets that it would no longer be including in its guidance any revenues attributable to its largest customers for the entire year." On August 12, 2022, CS Disco common shares fell 53% on heavy volume. A copy of the complaint is available here. No Responsibility for Attorney's Fees or Expenses Berman Tabacco typically represents individuals and entities in class actions on a contingency fee basis, meaning we advance all attorneys' fees and expenses in the litigation. If the case is successful, the firm will ask the court to award the firm attorneys' fees and the reimbursement of expenses from any settlement fund. If we are not successful, you will not be responsible for the reimbursement of attorneys' fees or expenses. About Berman Tabacco Berman Tabacco represents institutions and individuals in lawsuits seeking to recoup losses caused by corporate misconduct and violations of the securities and antitrust laws. Since 1982, our firm has prosecuted hundreds of securities and antitrust complex cases. The firm and its attorneys have been recognized for their work on behalf of plaintiffs, including by Chambers USA, Benchmark Litigation, which has ranked the firm as Highly Recommended and a Top Ten Plaintiffs, The Legal 500, U.S. News & World Report-Best Lawyers, The Daily Journal, Lawdragon, Who's Who Legal, and Super Lawyers. The firm has offices in Boston, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contacts Berman Tabacco Jay Eng, Esq. One Liberty Square Boston, Massachusetts Email: law@bermantabacco.com [GN] CVS PHARMACY: Faces Jordan Suit Over Pink Eye Drops' False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGIANN JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00979 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2023) contends that the Defendant's "Pink Eye Drops" under the CVS Health brand is not capable of "Relieving: Redness, Burning, Watery discharge (and) Gritty sensation," nor providing any of the other benefits promoted on its website. According to the complaint, the Product's website describes it as "a homeopathic formula." It describes the Product as "very helpful for relieving irritation, redness, burning, and dryness. The homeopathic formula is safe for use in the eyes and easy to apply. These drops are gentle enough for frequent use and even for use on children." By marketing the Product with these representations, consumers will expect it is a drug, as it appears to be "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and/or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body." The Product is misbranded because it is marketed to consumers as if it were safe and effective for the identified conditions, even though its use poses a public health risk, the Plaintiff asserts. As an ophthalmic drug product administered into the eyes, the Product poses a greater risk of harm because the route of administration bypasses some of the body's natural defenses. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, of approximately no less than $8.99 per 0.33 oz (10 mL), excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the suit added. The Plaintiff purchased, used and/or consumed the Product in reliance on the labeling identified in New York. CVS is a leading pharmacy and healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com DELTA AIRLINES: Court Certifies Antitrust Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Ch-Aviation reports that A US federal judge has ordered Delta Air Lines (DL, Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson) and United Airlines (UA, Chicago O'Hare) to face a consumer antitrust class action in which they are accused of conspiring to limit domestic capacity to drive up fares between 2009 and 2015. Columbia District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly concluded the plaintiffs presented enough evidence demonstrating a "pattern of parallel behaviour" and the existence of one or more factors "that tended to exclude the possibility that [the] defendants acted independently". Therefore, in a September 5 decision published on September 12, Kollar-Kotelly denied the airlines' motions for summary judgements in the multi-district class action lawsuit. American Airlines (AA, Dallas/Fort Worth) and Southwest Airlines (WN, Dallas Love Field) settled similar antitrust allegations for USD45 million and USD15 million in 2018 and 2019, respectively, to avoid the cost of more litigation. Reuters reports that payouts will not begin until claims against Delta and United are resolved. The case dates from July 2015, when three passengers filed an antitrust class action in the Milwaukee Federal Court against the four mainline carriers. The allegation is that between January 2009 and mid-2015, the airlines conspired in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to limit the supply of airline seats on domestic flights to increase airfares. "All parties acknowledge that the airline industry is an oligopoly, and the industry became more concentrated during the alleged conspiracy period due to several mergers between 2008 and 2013. Furthermore, the parties agree that [the] defendants had a controlling market share of the United States domestic market during the alleged conspiracy period," the judge commented. The court considered the airlines' argument that there was no evidence of collusion based on allegations that: -- domestic growth differed substantially and sometimes exceeded Gross Domestic Product (GDP); -- capacity growth rates did not deviate from historical patterns; -- competition on routes and at hubs; -- no evidence that Delta was punished for its above-GDP capacity growth; and -- no evidence the airlines engaged in private conspiratorial communications. The court also addressed the plaintiffs' assertions that the airlines had: -- a significant common motive for colluding -- to increase profitability; their announcements and statements expressed commitment to a common plan; they shared sensitive data and engaged in high-level interfirm communication; economic evidence demonstrated that capacity restraints and fare increases were not explained other than collusion; -- airline investors and analysts facilitated and enforced capacity restraints; this was a structural break from the defendants' past conduct. [GN] DEUTSCHE BANK: David Boies Hikes Hourly Billing Rate Amid Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Laus, writing for JDJournal, reports that leading litigator David Boies, renowned for his legal prowess, has escalated his hourly billing rate to an astonishing $2,110. This decision comes to light as his law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, presents this updated rate to a judge tasked with determining attorney fees in an ongoing class action lawsuit. The lawsuit revolves around victims of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, who are taking legal action against Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE). Elevated Billing Rates Revealed In a recent development, the hourly billing rates of David Boies and other legal practitioners have been unveiled through a fee petition filed by Boies Schiller Flexner in the Manhattan federal court. This petition is an integral component of the ongoing class action lawsuit by Epstein's victims. The plaintiffs' legal team seeks approval for a substantial $22.5 million fee award, equating to 30% of the $75 million settlement granted preliminary approval in June. David Boies: A Legal Luminary The revelation of David Boies' hourly rate places him firmly within an exclusive echelon of attorneys who command fees surpassing the $2,000 per hour threshold. Remarkably, this rate signifies a notable increase compared to the $1,950 hourly rate Boies disclosed last year while representing plaintiffs in a federal privacy lawsuit against Alphabet Inc.'s Google. It is customary for law firms to adjust their billing rates on an annual basis incrementally. Deutsche Bank Lawsuit The Deutsche Bank lawsuit, spearheaded by an individual identified as Jane Doe 1 and represented by David Boies, centers on allegations of sexual abuse by Epstein from 2003 to 2018. In her pursuit of justice, Jane Doe 1 has accused Deutsche Bank of failing to identify red flags regarding Epstein's misconduct. The bank vehemently denies these allegations. JPMorgan Chase Settlement In June, JPMorgan Chase agreed to a settlement of approximately $290 million in a parallel class action lawsuit, also filed by Epstein's victims and represented by Boies and his team. Notably, the fee petition for this case is scheduled for submission by October 5, with the possibility of fees amounting to 30%, totaling $87 million. Rising Hourly Rates Over the past decade, hourly lawyer rates reaching the $2,000 mark were virtually unheard of. However, in recent times, there has been a steady upward trajectory in billing rates, particularly for attorneys of elite stature. This trend underscores the increasing demand for legal expertise. Notable Precedents An intriguing precedent was set last year when the U.S. objected to a $2,465 hourly rate charged by Neal Katyal, an appellate veteran at Hogan Lovells, during a high-stakes bankruptcy case involving a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Furthermore, Covington & Burling, in a filing last year, disclosed that the top rate for senior partners at their firm stood at a remarkable $2,500 per hour. David Boies: A Litigation Powerhouse David Boies co-founded Boies Schiller Flexner in 1997, a year that also saw him engaged by the U.S. government in a pivotal antitrust battle against Microsoft Corp. This landmark case solidified the firm's reputation as a litigation powerhouse. Boies continued to make history by representing Vice President Al Gore in the highly consequential U.S. Supreme Court battle over the 2000 presidential election recount. Recent Controversies In recent times, David Boies faced scrutiny for his involvement in legal matters related to Harvey Weinstein, the former Hollywood producer convicted of rape in 2020, and the ill-fated blood-testing startup Theranos. These high-profile cases generated significant attention and commentary within the legal community. In conclusion, David Boies' decision to raise his hourly billing rate to $2,110 is a testament to his standing as one of the legal profession's most prominent figures. This development also reflects the evolving landscape of attorney billing rates, with elite lawyers commanding increasingly substantial fees. [GN] DRINK NECTAR: Hydration Powders' Label, "False," Scheibe Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRINK NECTAR, INC. DBA NECTAR HYDRATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04754-TSH (N.D. Cal., September 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Business & Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of hydration powders under the brand name Nectar Hydration. The front label of the products state that the products are "All Natural" and the back label states that they contain "no artificial ingredients." However, these labeling and advertising claims are false because the products are flavored using an artificial flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from petrochemicals. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers relied on the Defendant's label and advertising claims when they purchased the products. They would not have purchased or would have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the products had they known the truth, says the suit. Drink Nectar, Inc., doing business as Nectar Hydration, is a beverage company, with its principal place of business at 2745 Laguna Street in San Franciso, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com DSM-FIRMENICH AG: Hogan Hits Fragrance Market Price-fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA HOGAN and SANDRA KLUESSENDORF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DSM-FIRMENICH AG, FIRMENICH INTERNATIONAL SA, FIRMENICH INC., AGILEX FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., GIVAUDAN SA, GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORP., GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORP., UNGERER & COMPANY, INC., CUSTOM ESSENCE INC., INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES INC., SYMRISE AG, SYMRISE INC., AND SYMRISE US LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-18950 (D.N.J., Sept. 8, 2023) is a civil antitrust action seeking treble damages arising from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices for Fragrances and Fragrance Ingredients, and allocate and unreasonably restrain trade in the market for Fragrances and Fragrance Ingredients, sold in the United States from January 1, 2018, until such time as the anticompetitive effects of the conduct cease. According to the complaint, beginning at least as early as January 1, 2018, Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade to increase Fragrance prices. Defendants' conspiracy to fix prices for Fragrances was in reaction to increased costs of the raw materials used to manufacture Fragrances. To maintain their profitability, Defendants coordinated with one another to set the price of Fragrances for their customers, divided the consumer market by allocating certain customers to certain Defendants, and imposed supply constraints for Fragrances. Through this unlawful coordination, Defendants charged their customers supra-competitive prices, which were in turn passed through to end-user purchasers of products containing Fragrance and Fragrance Ingredients, including Plaintiffs and the Classes, says the suit. DSM-Firmenich AG is a Swiss corporation that recently formed out of a merger between Firmenich International S.A. and DSM Group. DSM-Firmenich AG manufactures and sells Fragrances and Fragrance Ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William G. Caldes, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com EARGO INC: Fazio Securities Class Action Suit Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Eargo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending July 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2023, that the hearing for Fazio securities class suit is scheduled on September 29, 2023. On October 6, 2021, putative shareholder Joseph Fazio filed a purported securities class action against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Fazio v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-07848 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) (the "Fazio Action"). Plaintiff Fazio alleges that certain of the Company’s disclosures about its business, operations, and prospects, including reimbursement from third-party payors, violated federal securities laws. Fazio voluntarily dismissed his complaint on December 6, 2021. On November 4, 2021, putative shareholder Alden Chung filed a purported class action lawsuit substantially similar to the Fazio Action, captioned Chung v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021) (the "Chung Action"). On November 10, 2021, putative shareholder IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan filed a purported class action substantially similar to the Fazio and Chung Actions and also asserting claims under the federal securities laws against current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") and the underwriters of the Company's October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common stock, captioned IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan v. Eargo, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-08747 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021) (the "IBEW Action"). These class actions, which seek damages and other relief, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Fazio and Chung Actions were brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo securities between February 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021. The IBEW Action was brought purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired: (i) Eargo shares in or traceable to the Company's October 15, 2020 initial public offering of common stock; and/or (ii) shares of Eargo common stock between October 15, 2020 and September 22, 2021. On January 5, 2022, the court consolidated the foregoing class actions (as consolidated, the "Securities Class Action") under the caption In re Eargo, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-08597-CRB, and appointed IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan and Xiaobin Cai as Lead Plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel. On May 20, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which purported to extend the class period through March 2, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2022. The Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 14, 2023. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 16, 2023 and defendants filed a second motion to dismiss on April 21, 2023. On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion, and on June 23, 2023, defendants filed their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The Company intends to vigorously defend the Securities Class Action and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from the litigation. Eargo Inc. is an American hearing aid manufacturer based in San Jose, California. EL MONUMENTAL: Corsino Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- BRIGIDA CORSINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff v. EL MONUMENTAL RESTAURANT, INC., a New York corporation, and DAVID CABA, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06701 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law due to their failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2018 through August 19, 2023 as a bartender. El Monumental Restaurant, Inc. operates a restaurant known as El Monumental located in Queens, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com ENTREE CORP: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- ARNOLDO GALVEZ LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENTREE CORP. and TOMASZ SLESZYNSKI, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06675 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023) seeks to recover damages for alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment at Entree Corp. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation, failure to keep accurate payroll records, and failure to provide with a wage notice at the time of his hire or at any time during his employment. Plaintiff Lopez was employed by Defendants from June 2020 until August 2023 with primary duties as a construction worker, laborer and helper, while performing other miscellaneous work. Entree Corp. is a New York domestic business corporation authorized to do business under the laws of 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 EXTRAORDINARY FLOORING: Hunter Alleges OT, Recordkeeping Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMONTE HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXTRAORDINARY FLOORING, LLC and JACOB LAWSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05134-EEF-KWR (E.D. La., Sept. 7, 2023) alleges Defendants' engagement in a pay scheme that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving proper overtime pay and accurate payroll and time-keeping records to Plaintiff and the collective members. Plaintiff Hunter was employed by the Defendants as a general laborer from May 2022 to March 2023. He and the collective members work or worked for Defendants as general laborers installing, resurfacing and polishing concrete and epoxy flooring. Extraordinary Flooring, LLC provides protective and decorative coatings for concrete floors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com F21 OPCO: Moll Sues Over Unprotected Personal Health Info --------------------------------------------------------- BRITTNAY MOLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. F21 OPCO LLC D/B/A FOREVER 21; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07418 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 7, 2023) arises from the recent data breach involving Forever 21, which collected and stored certain personally identifiable information and/or personal health information of the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members. According to Forever 21, the PII compromised in the data breach included highly-sensitive information including but not limited to personal information, such as name, Social Security number, date of birth, bank account number (without access code or pin), and information regarding Forever21 health plans, including enrollment and premiums paid. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was unsecured and left open to the unauthorized access of any unknown third party. Plaintiff Moll was previously employed by Defendant at the Forever 21 Great Mall Location in California. Based in Los Angeles, California, F21 OpCo LLC d/b/a Forever 21 is a fashion retailer that sells accessories, beauty products, home goods, and clothing for women, men and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition, Wallace Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY WALLACE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08236 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to provide a prorated refund of tuition or fees tied to its on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester. In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, Fordham, like many other colleges and universities, transitioned to remote online-only education, canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity events, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus. As a result, all on-campus education, services, and amenities were no longer available to Fordham students for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. Accordingly, Fordham's students lost the benefits of the bargain for services and the experience they paid for but could no longer access or use following the school's transition to remote learning in March 2020, the suit asserts. Fordham University is a private research university in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com FREEPORT PANCAKE: Court Approves Wage Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Gregory S. Slotnick, Esq., and Maria Caceres-Boneau, Esq. of Duane Morris, report that pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), the practice of settling lawsuits filed in district courts in the Second Circuit alleging unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") requires approval from either the Court or the U.S. Department of Labor to take effect. On September 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved a rather unique settlement request by the parties in such an unpaid wage case. Although nearly all wage & hour lawsuit settlements in the Second Circuit ultimately conclude with the business-employer defendant agreeing to pay a monetary amount in exchange for dismissal of the case and a release of the employees' wage claims against the employer, in Gallagher v. Mountain Mortgage Corp. et al., Case No. 22-CV-0715 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2023), the Court evaluated and signed-off on the parties' proposed settlement structure whereby the plaintiff-employee, who worked as a loan processor and mortgage loan originator for a mortgage lender, agreed to resolve the matter in exchange for her receipt of a heavily-discounted purchase price and her agreement to buy the business itself. The Court's decision serves as an interesting thought exercise for resolving unpaid wage lawsuits through unorthodox strategies, though potentially applicable only in particular circumstances under which the Court may find such resolution fair and reasonable. Case Background According to the Complaint, plaintiff-employee Nicole Gallagher ("Gallagher") has over 25 years of experience in the mortgage banking industry and is licensed to originate mortgage loans in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Florida. Gallagher alleged that she worked for a mortgage lender, Mountain Mortgage Corp. ("MMC"), for a little over a year and claimed that despite working around 85 hours per week, MMC did not pay her at all during certain months, never paid her overtime despite consistently working over 40 hours per week, and failed to provide her with accurate paystubs and weekly earnings statements or with a notice and acknowledgment of her pay rate as required by law. Specifically, Gallagher asserted that MMC paid her a set weekly salary and no overtime during the entire year of 2021, and that MMC did not compensate her at all during November and December 2020 or at any time in 2022. MMC claimed that at all relevant times, it understood that Gallagher was not an hourly employee, but instead "was an owner and officer" of MMC who was to be paid by commission no differently than other previously employed salespersons of MMC. Magistrate Judge Wicks' opinion noted that, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Gallagher and MMC had entered into a purchase agreement whereby Gallagher was to purchase MMC for $500,000. The parties informed the Judge that Gallagher was employed at MMC in advance of her anticipated purchase of MMC, but that when no successful application for a change in ownership of MMC was submitted to the New York State Department of Financial Services by the deadline contemplated in the purchase agreement, the parties' relationship soured, resulting in Gallagher filing the lawsuit. As part of the lawsuit, the parties previously submitted a request for the Judge's approval of a settlement on May 6, 2022, whereby Gallagher would purchase MMC for $100,000 rather than the $500,000 contemplated in the original purchase agreement. Judge Wicks ultimately denied the parties' first request for settlement approval due to what he deemed to be a lack of essential information required for the Court to evaluate whether the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable as required by Cheeks. Such information included the bona fide details of the parties' FLSA dispute, calculations of Gallagher's potential recovery, and an explanation of what portion of the reduced purchase price of MMC constituted consideration for Gallagher's FLSA claims. The decision of September 14 addressed the parties' submission of a renewed settlement approval request. The Decision As noted by Magistrate Judge Wicks, in support of the parties' renewed settlement agreement approval request, the parties aimed to kill two bird with one stone – resuscitate the parties' failed transaction and settle Gallagher's wage & hour claims against MMC. Id. at 6. This time around, Gallagher submitted detailed information to the Court concerning her purported unpaid wage damages, which she alleged to be approximately $295,000. This figure included alleged "underpayments, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, and penalties" owed to her by MMC. Id. at 4. Gallagher also provided the Court with the specific details of her alleged employment, including time periods, weekly hours worked, regular rate of pay, and periods during which she claims that she did not receive proper compensation. Magistrate Judge Wicks noted that under the original settlement approval request, he had been unable to determine which portion of the $400,000 reduction in MMC's purchase price, if any, was consideration for the release of Gallagher's FLSA claims, and which portion was attributable to other factors. As part of the renewed approval request, Gallagher informed the Court that no formal valuation was conducted to reach the original $500,000 purchase price, and that her reduced purchase price of $100,000 was similarly not calculated based on a formal valuation. Instead, both figures were the product of advice from her attorneys, her experience in the industry, and her "sense of the value" of the mortgage banking licenses (whereby MMC's New York Mortgage Banker's license was in the process of being surrendered). Id. at 5. Gallagher submitted that she was unable to "break down exactly" what portions of the reduced purchase price were attributable to what specific single factor; however, in her view, the value of her FLSA claims and the loss of MMC's New York license were both factors that were "in the mix" along with her desire to own MMC outright, avoid costly arbitration, avoid the stress and expense of the lawsuit, and generally "just move on" with her life. Id. at 5-6. In evaluating and approving the renewed settlement request, Magistrate Judge Wicks noted his satisfaction with the fairness of the proposed settlement, giving due weight to Gallagher's more than 25 years of experience in the mortgage banking industry and the fact that Gallagher herself worked at MMC with the intention of inevitably owning it (as opposed to a disinterested third-party purchase of a business). As such, although there was no formal valuation of MMC's value conducted, Judge Wicks acknowledged that Gallagher's experience and familiarity with the business was relevant to her comfort level with the reduced purchase price. The Court also gave weight to Gallagher's desire to move on with her life and put these issues behind her. Magistrate Judge Wicks further cited the fact that Gallagher now owns 100% of MMC, and that a trial loss should he not approve the settlement could potentially turn her status as 100% owner into a 0% owner with no remaining claims against MMC. The Court noted that no settlement amount was earmarked for payment of attorneys' fees, as all of Gallagher's attorneys except for one were paid on an hourly basis (rather than a contingency), that the one exception only represented Gallagher briefly and was replaced within 3 months of filing the case, and the attorney had not expressed any intention of asserting a lien over the reduced purchase price of MMC. Based on all of these factors, the Court finally confirmed that the renewed settlement agreement properly revised and limited two troublesome provisions concerning non-disparagement and confidentiality – both of which are regularly found by courts to be inconsistent with the public policy intent underlying the FLSA. Implications for Employers The decision is an interesting thought experiment for small employers who are subject to unpaid wage lawsuits brought on behalf of a small number of plaintiffs. In this instance, the parties agreed that rather than separate Gallagher's desire to purchase MMC and her alleged unpaid overtime wages and related penalties, a more logical solution was to combine the two and provide for one global resolution. Creative, innovative thinking along these lines likely saved MMC from incurring additional litigation expenses and the unknown of a jury trial verdict. Moreover, the parties ultimately were able to provide the Court with evidence from which the settlement could be deemed fair and reasonable. Although potentially limited to specific factual situations along the lines of an experienced employee initially employed by a small business with the goal of owning the business, this decision illustrates that in evaluating the reasonableness of proposed unpaid wage case settlements, judges may be open to approving agreements when the parties think outside the box (as long as the parties are able to defend and support their actions). [GN] GB PROVISIONS: Fails to Pay Server's Minimum Wages, Lupton Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TREY LUPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. GB PROVISIONS, LLC; and LOWOODFIRE, LLC d/b/a Lowood, Case No. 4:23-cv-00403-CVE (N.D. Okla, Sept. 18, 2023) alleges that Defendant fails to pay full minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants purportedly seek to take advantage of the tip credit -- by paying their servers less than minimum wage and taking a credit for a portion of the tips they earned to offset the Defendants' minimum wage obligation. The Defendants allegedly paid Plaintiff and other servers like the Plaintiff -- wages that are less than $7.25 per hour, which is the minimum wage required by the FLSA. The Defendants did not comply with the strict requirements for taking a tip credit and thus have lost any ability to rely on the tip credit to supplement their failure to pay the Plaintiffs the full minimum wage. Therefore, Defendants must compensate the Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees -- servers -- the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, for all hours worked. In other words, Defendants must account for the difference between the subminimum hourly wage paid to Plaintiff and Collective Members and the full minimum wage ($7.25) required by the FLSA, says the Plaintiff. In addition, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the Collective Members for all misappropriated tips, plus liquidated damages in an amount equal to all damages owed to them. The Plaintiff and Collective Members are entitled to recover an additional award to compensate them for their attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff brings this complaint individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees -- other servers -- who worked at the Defendants' restaurants in Oklahoma at any time in the past three years. Plaintiff Lupton was employed by Defendants as a server from December 2022 until March 2023. GB Provisions is the entity that is responsible for managing and operating a group of restaurants in Oklahoma, including LowoodFire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com - and - Jeff A. Taylor, Esq. THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK 5613 N. Classen Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286-1600 Facsimile: (405) 842-6132 GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Chevrolet Traverse SUVs --------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Chevrolet Traverse class action lawsuit alleges General Motors sold model year 2020 Traverse AWD (all-wheel-drive) SUVs that were really FWD (front-wheel-drive). According to the two plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, the 2020 Chevy Traverse vehicles have emblems that clearly say they are AWD, something that can make a difference in snow compared to FWD vehicles. GM says all-wheel-drive "enhances traction and control on slippery or snow-covered roads." The Chevy Traverse lawsuit alleges GM knew or should have known the vehicles were only FWD vehicles that were being advertised as AWD vehicles. General Motors allegedly identifies each vehicle with a vehicle identification number (VIN) which includes an "R" at the fifth position to designate the Traverse as front-wheel-drive, not AWD. The Traverse class action further alleges even though GM expressly represents the 2020 Chevy Traverse as all-wheel-drive when they are not, the automaker has refused to replace the SUVs. 2020 Chevrolet Traverse Class Action Lawsuit -- The Plaintiffs The Traverse class action was filed by California plaintiffs Kyle Buffenmyer and Amanda Herberger. Both plaintiffs allege they purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Traverse vehicle with an "AWD" emblem attached to the SUV. The plaintiffs contend they relied on the factory-applied AWD emblem attached to the back of the Chevrolet Traverse. The plaintiffs assert they would not have purchased the vehicle if GM would have warned them the Traverse was only front-wheel-drive. Both plaintiffs allege they needed a Traverse AWD vehicle for driving in snow. In February 2021 and following 3 to 5 inches of snowfall, the plaintiffs attempted to drive out of their garage but the vehicle became stuck in the driveway. The vehicle allegedly could neither move forward nor backward, and only the front wheels were spinning. The plaintiffs had to shovel a track to pull back into the garage and were then stranded at home. The 2020 Chevy Traverse was brought to a GM dealership which allegedly verified the Traverse was FWD, not AWD. The plaintiffs contend they contacted General Motors and asked for a replacement vehicle equipped with all-wheel-drive, but GM allegedly "refused to provide adequate relief." The Chevy Traverse AWD class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of San Mateo County California: Buffenmyer, et al., v. General Motors LLC, et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Olivier & Schreiber LLP, and Conn Law, PC. [GN] GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Clancy Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CLANCY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GLOBAL ATLANTIC FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07975 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023) is a class action against Global Atlantic for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Global Atlantic customers' sensitive information, including full names, dates of birth, policy numbers, states, and Social Security numbers. On an undisclosed date, the Defendant learned that one its IT vendor's networks, Pension Benefit Information, LLC, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. According to the complaint, Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members personally identifiable information -- 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. Global Atlantic Financial Group, LLC is a retirement and life insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (865) 412-2700 E-mail: vmaniatis@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 GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Guzman Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELINA GUZMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GLOBAL ATLANTIC FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08150-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's information network that includes names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, policy number(s), genders, and states. The Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive cyberattack purportedly discovered by the Defendant on June 7, 2023. The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant also breached its duty to notify the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members of the unauthorized access by waiting until August 11, 2023 to notify the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members and then by failing and continuing to fail to provide Representative Plaintiff and Class Members sufficient information regarding the breach, the Plaintiff adds. To date, the Defendant has not provided sufficient information to the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members regarding the extent of the unauthorized access and continues to breach its disclosure obligations to the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of the Defendant's negligence and negligence per se, The Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer other forms of injury and/or harm, including anxiety, emotional distress, loss of privacy, and other economic and non-economic losses. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence and negligence per se, the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have allegedly suffered and will continue to suffer the continued risks of exposure of their PII, which remains in the Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as the Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect PII in its continued possession. The Representative Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California. The Defendant received the Representative Plaintiff's PII in connection with life insurance she purchased from the Defendant. The Defendant provides retirement and life insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared R. Cooper, Esq. ROBINSON YABLON COOPER & BONFANTE, LLP 232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 725-8566 Facsimile: (212) 725-8567 E-mail: jared@rycbinjury.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com GOOGLE LLC: High Court Set to Rule on Settlement in October ----------------------------------------------------------- William Baldwin, writing for Forbes, reports that quixotic quest: make the lawyers filing class actions more interested in the welfare of their clients than in lining their own pockets. The crusader on this mission: Theodore H. Frank, the 54-year-old co-founder and lead actor at a nonprofit called the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. The class lawsuit industry is a peculiarly American one in which law firms collect fees for bringing cases against corporations on behalf of thousands or millions of victims. The misdeed alleged might be charging an impermissible overdraft fee, issuing a merger document that is insufficiently wordy or leaving too much air at the top of a cereal box. Then, long before any witness is called to the stand, the case is settled. The settlement typically has the corporation agreeing to pay rewards to a few named plaintiffs working with the lawyers and a tiny recompense to the millions of consumers or investors who are in the class. This resolution is accompanied by a very generous contribution to the bank account of the plaintiff law firm. That's when Ted Frank or one of the six lawyers working with him jumps in. They ask the judge overseeing the litigation to reduce the pay to the plaintiff lawyers, increase the compensation to the victim class or just throw the whole case out. As often as not, they get a result. Frank says that Hamilton Lincoln's Center for Class Action Fairness has participated in 125 cases and won at least a partial victory in a comfortable majority. In August Frank's institute scored a win in the Seventh Circuit when an appeals court threw out a $57 million payday for the lawyers who won $181 million on behalf of consumers who overpaid for broiler chicken. If the lower court goes along, grocery store customers will get a larger share of that $181 million. If you bought raw chicken between 2012 and 2019, submit a claim at overchargedforchicken.com. A case that had Frank handling an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 will finally draw to a close in October, when a district court is expected to approve a settlement of litigation over the way Google used search query data between 2006 and 2013. The original deal had Google buying peace by dishing out money to charities, paying victims nothing and rewarding the plaintiff law firms with $2 million. The Supreme Court bought Frank's argument that this sort of settlement was unacceptable and kicked the matter back to lower courts. In the updated settlement, something like $16 million will be disbursed to the small fraction of web surfers who heard about the case and sent in claims before the July 31 deadline. What does Hamilton Lincoln extract from such interventions? Not much. "We saved [class members] tens of millions in one case. We asked for $199,000. The court said, ‘Okay, here's $12,000.' After two appeals, we got that increased to $34,000." Most of Hamilton Lincoln's $1.2 million budget comes from donations. Frank pinches pennies. The institute is named after Hamilton and Lincoln in large part because the web address containing the acronym HLLI could be had without paying off a domain squatter. The lawyers mostly work out of their homes, Frank in Houston and the others in five other states. What do consumers get out of class actions? Precious little. In one outlandish but not atypical case, lawyers went after the Subway chain on the theory that variations in the length of "foot-long" sandwiches caused damage. The company and the lawyers came up with a settlement that benefited nine named sandwich buyers, did nothing for the millions of anonymous customers in the class and paid off the plaintiff lawyers. Frank busted that deal up by getting the Seventh Circuit U.S. appeals court to decree that an appropriate percentage fee for a $0 class benefit would be $0. Common ploy that plaintiff lawyers use to settle cases: offer the victims discount coupons, while the lawyers get cash. A lawsuit claiming that Samsung washers were defective came to a settlement. Most of the 2.8 million victims were to get a rebate that they could only use by gritting their teeth and buying another Samsung appliance. The plaintiff lawyers, postulating that every member of the class would use the rebates, valued their accomplishment at $65 million and wanted a $6 million fee. Frank's organization argued that the rebates were close to worthless and got the fee cut to $3.8 million. The Subway and Samsung interventions didn't make class members any richer, but they did have the salutary effect of reducing the incentive for plaintiff lawyers to file nuisance cases with the aim of being paid to go away. "We want to deter counterproductive class actions but encourage the good ones that win the class some money," Frank says. Class suits do help to discipline miscreants, he concedes, but this answer to corporate ills is an expensive one, draining the economy to pay lawyers on both sides. What do investors get out of class actions? Sometimes, a lot. The litigation over securities violations involving Petrobras, the Brazilian oil producer, delivered a $3 billion pot, from which plaintiff lawyers wanted to pull a $299 million fee; Frank's objections got $95 million of that fee re-routed to the victims. Sometimes, securities litigation is just the movement of hot air. Plaintiff lawyers used to have a thriving business blocking corporate mergers by alleging deficiencies in the disclosure document. The defendant would pay the ransom, rewriting a document and handing a check to the lawyers. Frank's group challenged one of these vacuous class actions and in 2016 won an appeal in the Seventh Circuit. Judge Richard Posner's opinion called the disclosure lawsuits "no better than a racket." The Center for Class Action has had a disproportionate number of its victories in the Seventh Circuit, which sits in Chicago. One reason for that is that Posner, who retired in 2017, was the standard bearer of the "law and economics" movement, which says that jurists should think about the economic consequences of their decisions. The second most famous proponent of that philosophy, Frank Easterbrook, is also on the Seventh Circuit. Ted Frank, after getting his law degree from the University of Chicago, clerked for Easterbrook. Contrast what comes out of federal courts elsewhere. Pending now in Virginia, which is part of the Fourth Circuit, is a case against Altria Group, the company that sells Marlboro cigarettes. Altria evaporated $12 billion of its shareholders' money by investing in Juul, the vape company later found to have allowed its products to fall all too easily into the hands of minors. On the theory that the law provides a remedy for such mistakes, six plaintiff law firms filed shareholder derivative cases against Altria and its officers and directors. It is, of course, absurd to think that officers and directors approving a bad acquisition will personally cough up $12 billion to reimburse shareholders. So the cases, now consolidated, came to a proposed settlement in February. Altria insiders are chipping in not a dime. Instead, the company is to spend between $100 million and $107 million on anti-tobacco campaigns and another $10 million on a monitor to oversee that effort. The plaintiff law firms pocket $15 million. What a farce. "The company is out $130 million plus whatever they paid their own lawyers," Frank says. "The end result is that shareholders are worse off." He would dearly love to get the settlement thrown out but has probably arrived on the scene too late to have the case reopened. There will be other opportunities to reduce the economic absurdities in American law. What's the deadweight loss of class actions—costs beyond the reimbursement of victims? "Billions of dollars a year," Frank says. It's Not All Chicken Fees The Center for Class Action Fairness remains focused on fees in case settlements, such as the $57 million billed by lawyers litigating poultry prices. But the parent organization, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, has broadened its reach into such matters as free speech, fiduciary standards and affirmative action. "People are more interested in the First Amendment than the esoterics of 23(e)(2)(c)(ii)," Ted Frank says, referring to the rule on class action procedure. HLLI is contesting rules limiting what doctors and pharmacists can say about Covid. It is also suing to stop a U.S. Labor Department rule that allows pension managers to favor nice-guy companies, despite a statute mandating that pensioners' financial interests come first. "People in the Biden Administration are going off on their own ideological agenda," Frank says. "The separation of powers is important. This is not a monarchy." Hamilton Lincoln will probably join an amicus brief in the litigation involving the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology in Alexandria, Virginia. The controversy there has to do with the school's decision to eliminate an entrance exam because too many Asians were getting in. The affirmative action debate is already crowded, but there is something to be said for weighing in: It increases an organization's visibility. Frank had a brief moment of fame this summer after the Supreme Court forbade race discrimination at Harvard. He pointed out an absurdity in one of the dissenting opinions, the assertion that having a physician of the right race would double a high-risk baby's chance of survival. [GN] GURUSHIVAY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GURUSHIVAY, INC. d/b/a CAPRESE NEW YORK PIZZA & PASTA; and VIJAY P. GUPTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04188-ELR (N.D. Ga., Sept. 15, 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 Gomez was employed by the Defendants as a cook. GURUSHIVAY, INC. d/b/a CAPRESE NEW YORK PIZZA & PASTA owns and operates a restaurant in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com HAND HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Servers Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kyo Ok Goo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HAND Hospitality LLC, Cho Dang Gol LLC, Toledo 53 Inc. and Kihyun Lee, Case No. 1:23-cv-08235 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. During the Plaintiff's employment and the FLSA Collective Period and NYLL Class Period, the Plaintiff and members of FLSA Collective and NYLL Class clocked in and out through the Cho Dang Gol's POS system. But the Defendants allegedly paid them a few hours less than all hours they worked in a week instead of paying them all hours they worked. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff a fixed wage regardless of the hours she worked in a day or in a week. The Defendants deducted the Plaintiff's wage in 25% of her cash payroll as tax withholding but they never paid tax for the Plaintiff, the suit claims. The Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA are brought as a collective action, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons who were employed by the Defendants as "Service/Front of the House Staffs, Kitchen workers, and all other employees, who were paid in cash and retained 25% of the payroll by Defendants." The Plaintiff's claims under the NYLL are brought as a class action, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons who were employed by the Defendants as "Service/Front of the House Staffs, Kitchen workers, and all other employees, who were paid in cash and retained 25% of the payroll by Defendants." Plaintiff Kyo Ok Goo was employed by the Defendants as a Server at Cho Dang Gol from 2014 to May 2023. HAND operates 13 restaurants including Cho Dang Gol in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com HERTZ CORP: Fails to Pay Manager's OT Wages, Maharaj Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ZABEENA MAHARAJ, on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2023) alleges that the Defendant engages in a policy and practice of not compensating the Plaintiff and the California Class Members for all hours worked, including overtime and double time wages. According to the complaint, the primary duties of the Plaintiff and the California Operations Managers do not fall under any of the exemptions to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff's and the California Class Members' primary duties were non-exempt duties, including general customer service and vehicle preparation for rental. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and the California Class Members have been victims of a common policy and plan perpetuated by the Defendant that has violated their rights under the California Labor Code by denying them overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day, including hours worked before the scheduled start time of shifts, after the scheduled end time of shifts, during unpaid meal breaks, and engaging in work-related communications when away from the location. The Plaintiff and the California Class Members also paid out-of-pocket business expenses necessary for the performance of their jobs as OMs for which the Plaintiff and the California Class Members have not received reimbursement from the Defendant, the lawsuit alleges. The Defendant is aware that the OMs, including the Plaintiff and the California Class Members regularly work during their meal and rest breaks. The Defendant nevertheless has failed and refuses to pay meal and rest break penalties Plaintiff and California Class Members, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for business expenses, unpaid wages, and interest thereon, penalties, declaratory and equitable relief, and reasonable attorney' fees and costs under the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 2016 to September 2022 as an Operations Manager in Oakland, California. The Defendant is a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., but the company operates HERTZ and Hertz Global Holdings as one enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com HKE EXPRESS: Dominguez Suit Alleges Discrimination, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- SAULY SAMUEL CORDERO DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HKE EXPRESS INC. and ZDENKO HUTNIK and MICHAL HUTNIK, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06690 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The complaint seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising from Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants and to redress the injuries that Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being discriminated against due to his actual and/or perceived accident-related disabilities; retaliated against for requesting reasonable accommodations for his injuries; and ultimately being terminated on the basis of his actual and/or perceived accident-related disabilities. The Plaintiff was employed by HKE Express as a driver and delivery person while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from February 2019 until September 2022. HKE Express Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation.[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 HOMEADVISOR: Faces Fraud Charges Over Customer Leads ---------------------------------------------------- Angi Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that a consolidated case alleging that HomeAdvisor engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain charges. In July 2018, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, "Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al.," No. 1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the nine service professionals naming as defendants HomeAdvisor and Angi in a proposed second amended complaint. In November 2018, an order was issued consolidating the case to "In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation." In January 2019, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for leave to file a consolidated second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to HomeAdvisor, Angi and IAC, CraftJack, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company) and two unrelated entities. In February 2019, the defendants opposed the motion on various grounds. In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion. In October and December 2019, the four defendants affiliated with HomeAdvisor filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the amended complaint. In September 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. Angi Inc. connects home service professionals with consumers for repairing and remodeling homes to cleaning and landscaping operating under multiple brands including Angi, HomeAdvisor, Handy, Total Home Roofing and Angi Roofing. INCOMM PAYMENTS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Visa Debit Cards ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action claims consumers who purchase prepaid Visa debit cards sold by InComm Payments are often blocked from accessing some or all of the funds loaded onto the cards. The 26-page lawsuit was filed by a California consumer who says he purchased four of the defendant's SecureSpend prepaid Visa gift cards while shopping at a Lucky Supermarket in December 2021. However, even after the man paid the $5.95 fee to activate each gift card, the plaintiff found that the two $200 and two $100 cards consistently declined at the point of sale, the complaint alleges. The suit contends that the preloaded funds on the plaintiff's SecureSpend cards were partially or completely depleted before he tried to use the cards, or the amount was never loaded onto the cards in the first place. According to the case, InComm has a "history" of denying consumers access to funds loaded onto their gift cards, which can be purchased with preloaded funds of a specified amount or as reloadable varieties onto which a consumer can continuously load cash, such as the Vanilla Visa prepaid card. The filing says that within the past three years, consumers have submitted 1,367 complaints to the Better Business Bureau about InComm cards, many of which the defendant has responded to. "Despite being aware of consumer complaints regarding its Gift Cards, InComm continues to engage in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent practices by marketing Gift Cards with specific Face Value amounts, even though that is not the case," the case states. What's more, the plaintiff says that when he attempted to contact InComm customer service about the problem he had experienced with his gift cards, the man was often placed on hold for more than an hour. During one phone call, the man was connected with a live customer service representative from a call center in the Philippines who said he would receive a replacement gift card in the mail, the complaint says. The man claims he never received a replacement card and has been repeatedly disconnected from phone calls with InComm after he selects the option to speak to a live customer service representative. The complaint also names as a defendant Pathward, a South Dakota-based bank that allegedly issues InComm's gift cards. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone within the United States who purchased or is the current owner of one or more InComm Prepaid Debit Card(s) and was blocked from use of any portion of the funds on their InComm Visa(R) Prepaid Debit Card(s). [GN] INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 18 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation (NASDAQ: IART) between March 11, 2019 and May 22, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 13, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Integra common stock during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Integra class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19078 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 13, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the complaint, defendants made false statements and/or concealed that Integra had failed to take sufficient measures to remediate the violations identified by the FDA in the November 2, 2018 Notice of Inspectional Observations on Form 483 (the "2018 Form 483"), the March 6, 2019 FDA issued warning letter (the "2019 Warning Letter"), and the November 12, 2021 FDA issued Form 483 (the "2021 Form 483"). As a result of those deficiencies, since March 2018, all products manufactured in the Boston Facility had the potential for higher-than-permitted levels of endotoxin and would need to be recalled. Moreover, the Company was not making progress towards obtaining its premarket approval ("PMA") indication for SurgiMend, in part, because the manufacturing site that would produce the PMA product, the Boston Facility, was in continued violation of the FDA standards that Integra failed to rectify years after the initial notice of the violations and as a result the facility had to be shutdown to correct those ongoing deficiencies. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Integra class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19078 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] J. W. JUNG SEED: Frizzell Sues Over Managers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA FRIZZELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J. W. JUNG SEED COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-1189 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in February 2023 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Manager working at its Appleton, Wisconsin location. J. W. Jung Seed Company is a family-owned and operated garden seed company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com JOHN HANCOCK: Zaben Sues Over Excessive Insurance Cost Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- ZABEN, LLC and WEINSTOCK PARTNERS LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-08178 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract. The Plaintiffs bring this class action suit on behalf of similarly situated owners of certain universal life insurance policies insured by John Hancock who have been forced to pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance (COI) charges. According to the complaint, John Hancock has not reduced COI rates following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which, among other things, reduced the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. Instead, it has in fact continued to increase COI rates according to a pre-TCJA COI rate scale. As a result of this misconduct, the Plaintiffs seek monetary relief for the COI overcharges that John Hancock has wrongly imposed on them. Zaben, LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Monsey, New York. Weinstock Partners LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Cedarhurst, New York. John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York is an insurance company, with its principal place of business in Valhalla, New York. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) is a stock life insurance company, with its principal offices in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Zack Savage, Esq. Ari Ruben, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com zsavage@susmangodfrey.com aruben@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Halley Josephs, Esq. Kim Page, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baughman Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BAUGHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.; KENVUE INC.; PROCTER & GAMBLE; and RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07737 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought under California's consumer protection laws by the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, who purchased over-the-counter decongestant products containing phenylephrine. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Products are manufactured, sold and distributed by the Defendants and have been found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to lack efficacy. Defendants have long been aware of the lack of efficacy but have continued to sell the Products. The Products' lack of efficacy was not disclosed to the Plaintiff prior to the Plaintiff's purchase of the Products. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products had she known they did not work as advertised, says the suit. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. engages in the research and development of products. The Company provides products for newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and nursing products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cronin Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBYN CRONIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.; and PROCTER & GAMBLE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06870 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendants advertised and sell a mislabeled over-the-counter decongestant products containing the active ingredient phenylephrine (PE). According to the complaint, the Defendants represented and warranted to consumers that PE Drugs were effective for treating the indications identified and were properly branded. Specifically, the Defendants represented that PE Drugs were merchantable and fit for their ordinary uses, for treating nasal decongestion. At no point in time did the Defendants disclose the PE Drugs' lack of efficacy to the Plaintiff, nor the putative class members. If the Plaintiff and the putative class members had known that PE Drugs were not efficacious prior to their purchases of PE Drugs, they would not have purchased PE Drugs, says the suit. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. engages in the research and development of products. The Company provides products for newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and nursing products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond C. Silverman, Esq. Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq. Jason S. Goldstein, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Tel: (516) 466-6500 Fax: (516) 466-6665 Email: rsilverman@yourlawyer.com mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com jgoldstein@yourlawyer.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McWhite Sues Over Sudafed PE Tablet False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kamonica McWhite, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-20379 (D.N.J., Sept. 14, 2023) is a class action lawsuit by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated who purchased Defendant's tablet style phenylephrine medicine, "Sudafed PE" branded products that were manufactured, marketed, labeled, distributed, and sold by Defendant. The complaint alleges that these Drugs are designed to combat sinus issues, such as congestion. In contrary, the Drugs are ineffective according to the FDA, this is due to their active ingredient being phenylephrine. The Plaintiff, along with many others, has spent countless dollars on these Drugs while expecting to be relieved of sinus pain but to no avail. As a result, the Plaintiff was damaged in that she lost her benefit of the bargain, has suffered economic loss through the retention of her funds paid for Drugs, and has suffered inconveniences due to the constant denial of relief from sinus conditions, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action because of the Defendant's fraud, false marketing, false advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and breaches of state law consumer protection statutes. The Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and any other just and proper relief available thereunder for the Defendant's negligent failure to deliver the bargained for Drugs. The Defendant is a medical drug provider, specializing in sinus pains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Furia, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY, Esq. ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: roy.willey@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: PE Drugs "Ineffective," Thorns Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA THORNS and SCOTT COLLIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, and WALGREEN CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01355-JR (D. Ore., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter oral nasal decongestants referred as PE drugs, containing the active ingredient Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendants market PE drugs to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC) has concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE drugs, the Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at treating nasal congestion, the suit says. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Walgreen Co. is an operator of a pharmacy store chain, with its principal place of business in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Ryan Casey, Esq. THE CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 4577 Frisco, CO 80443 Telephone: (970) 372-6509 E-mail: ryan@rcaseylaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Reinkraut Sues Over Sudafed PE Tablet False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB REINKRAUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. and KENVUE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-20444 (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2023) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a national class of all persons who purchased orally-administered Sudafed phenylephrine (PE), an over-the-counter cold medication manufactured, and sold by the Defendants that contains PE -- an ingredient that supposedly acts as nasal decongestant but, in reality, does nothing. Despite the Defendants' knowledge that phenylephrine was ineffective as a nasal decongestant, the Defendants expressly misrepresented and misled consumers, wholesalers, and retailers by touting Sudafed PE as a "Nasal Decongestant" that could be used to "temporarily relieve sinus congestion and pressure" and "temporarily relieve nasal decongestion due to the common cold, hay fever or other upper respiratory allergies," the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants allegedly misrepresented the truth and omitted material information they had a duty to disclose to the Plaintiff and other consumers to maximize their profits and to delay the massive costs of immediately ceasing and/or recalling ineffective Sudafed PE. The Defendants sold $1.8 billion in over-the-counter cold medication, including Sudafed PE, in 2022 alone. The Plaintiff would not have purchased Sudafed PE had he known that it could not be used to treat nasal decongestion, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings express and implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims arising from Defendants' unfair and deceptive business practices in knowingly placing ineffective Sudafed PE into the stream of commerce. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and the Class damages and/or restitution for the Defendants' unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff seeks to represent and certify the following class: All United States residents who purchased orally- Administered Sudafed PE during the Class Period. The Class excludes any judge or magistrate assigned to this case, Defendants, Defendants' officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest. Between 2017 and 2023, the Plaintiff purchased packages of Sudafed PE at Walgreens and CVS. The Plaintiff purchased Sudafed PE from these retail stores in New Jersey and paid approximately $12-$14 for each package of Sudafed PE. JJCI manufactured, marketed, designed, promoted, and/or distributed Sudafed PE containing ineffective phenylephrine in New Jersey and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. Paul Sweeny, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com paul@sfclasslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tuominen Sues Over Sudafed PE's Deceptive Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- TINA TUOMINEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13796 (N.D. Ill., September 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of State Consumer Protection Statutes, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter oral nasal decongestants known as Sudafed PE, containing the active ingredient Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendant markets Sudafed PE to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC) has concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing Sudafed PE, the Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at treating nasal congestion. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is a consumer goods company based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan J. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MI 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Erin Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: eruben@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wright Sues Over Sale of Ineffective PE Drugs ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., KENVUE, INC., RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, PROCTER & GAMBLE, WAL-MART, INC., and WAL-MART STORES EAST 1, LP, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-06120-LMC (W.D. Mo., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and fraud by omission/concealment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter oral nasal decongestants, containing the active ingredient Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendants market PE drugs to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC) has concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE drugs, the Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at treating nasal congestion, the suit says. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is a consumer products company, headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Kenvue Inc. is a consumer health company, headquartered in Skillman, New Jersey. Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Wal-Mart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-Mart Stores East 1, LP is a retail company based in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Horn, Esq. Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. Taylor P. Foye, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: rhorn@hab-law.com jkronawitter@hab-law.com tfoye@hab-law.com - and - Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Bradley D. Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD, LLC 9500 Nall Avenue, Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and - Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com KENVUE INC: Faces Class Action Over Sudafed Decongestant Efficacy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that following a determination made by a panel of scientific advisors to the U.S. government, which found that the decongestant phenylephrine is no more effective than a placebo, a Minnesota woman has filed a class action lawsuit against the makers of Sudafed. The complaint (PDF) was brought by Miesha McIntyre in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on September 15, seeking class action status to pursue damages on behalf of all consumers from the drug maker Kenvue, Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare as defendants. Both companies were previously owned by Johnson & Johnson, and comprised its over-the-counter consumer medication division. They have since been spun off into Kenvue, which is now a separate company that owns McNeil. Sudafed Decongestant Does Not Work Earlier this month, an advisory committee to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that the decongestant phenylephrine is ineffective when taken orally. Even though its been on the market for decades in popular products like Sudafed, Mucinex and Tylenol Cold and Flu tablets and liquids, recent data indicates it is no more effective than a placebo. The FDA must now decide whether it should be allowed to remain on the market. However, McIntyre's lawsuit points out that she and other paid premium prices for expensive cold medications for decades which did not alleviate their decongestion. Her lawsuit specifically targets Sudafed PE, which she indicates she used as recently as this month, but failed to experience decongestion relief. The reason why only became apparent after the FDA advisory committee's findings were announced. "Had Plaintiff known that the phenylephrine-containing Products were entirely ineffective as a nasal decongestant, she would not have purchased them, or would have paid substantially less for them," the lawsuit states. "Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other consumers of Defendants' phenylephrine products, seeks to hold Defendants accountable for their deceptions, breaches of warranties, and violations of Minnesota consumer protection statutes." The Sudafed class action lawsuit seeks to represent all persons in Minnesota who purchased an oral nasal decongestant containing phenylephrine manufactured by the defendants. McIntyre accuses the manufacturers of breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission, and violation of various Minnesota consumer protection laws. [GN] KENVUE INC: Sudafed PE Decongestant is Ineffective, McIntyre Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIESHA MCINTYRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KENVUE, INC. AND MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, Case No. 0:23-cv-02862 (D. Minn., Sept. 15, 2023) contends that the over-the-counter product Sudafed PE manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold by Defendants as an effective nasal decongestant, does no such thing according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According to the complaint, the product's lack of efficacy was allegedly not disclosed to the Plaintiff prior to the Plaintiff's purchase of the Product and Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product or would have paid less for it had she known the Product did not work as advertised. Unknown to ordinary consumers like the Plaintiff, but known to the manufacturers in this lucrative market, phenylephrine taken orally is ineffective. It provides no relief for congestion, and is no better than a placebo, like a sugar pill, as a decongestant when taken orally, the Plaintiff claims. Had the Plaintiff known that the phenylephrine-containing Products were entirely ineffective as a nasal decongestant, she would not have purchased them, or would have paid substantially less for them. As a result of the Defendants' false and deceptive marketing, the Plaintiff, and the class members, suffered economic damages, including the cost of purchasing the Products, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other consumers of the Defendants' phenylephrine products, seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for their deceptions, breaches of warranties, and violations of Minnesota consumer protection statutes. In September 2023, the Plaintiff had sinus congestion associated with a cold and purchased Sudafed PE. The Product was ineffective in relieving Plaintiff's congestion. Kenvue is an American consumer health company, and formerly the consumer healthcare division of Johnson & Johnson.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-4801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Vehicle Engine Defects ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Kia agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that some of its vehicles suffer from engine defects. The settlement benefits owners and lessees of certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles. A full list of eligible vehicles can be found in the "Who's Eligible" section below. According to the class action lawsuit, the class vehicles suffer from a defect related to the engine's connecting rod bearing. This bearing can allegedly fail, causing engine seizure, stalling, engine failure and even engine fires — all of which may not be covered by warranty. Kia is a South Korea-based vehicle company that owns both Hyundai and Kia brands. Kia hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the engine defect class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Kia engine failure settlement, class members can receive out-of-pocket expense reimbursement, compensation for trade-ins and sales, compensation for total vehicle losses, warranty extensions and participate in a rebate program. To be eligible for certain types of compensation -- such as for rental car, towing, ride-sharing or other transportation and incidental expenses -- the knock sensor detection software (KSDS) update on the class vehicle must be performed on or before Nov. 4, 2023. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Aug. 7, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement was held on Sept. 8, 2023. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 7, 2023. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits owners and lessees of: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 model year Hyundai Sonata Hybrid vehicles with a Theta II engine 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 model year Hyundai Sonata Hybrid/Plug-In Hybrid vehicles with a Nu engine 2010, 2011 and 2012 model year Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles with a Theta II engine 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Hyundai Tucson vehicles with a Theta II engine 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 model year Hyundai Tucson vehicles with a Nu engine 2014 model year Hyundai Elantra Coupe vehicles with a Nu engine 2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Hyundai Elantra vehicles with a Nu engine 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 model year Hyundai Elantra GT vehicles with a Nu engine 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 model year Hyundai Veloster vehicles with a Gamma engine 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Kia Optima Hybrid vehicles with a Theta II engine 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 model year Kia Optima Hybrid (HEV/PHEV) vehicles with a Nu engine 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Kia Sorento vehicles with a Theta II engine 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Kia Sportage vehicles with a Theta II engine 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Kia Forte vehicles with a Theta II engine 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year Kia Forte Koup vehicles with a Theta II engine 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 model year Kia Forte vehicles with a Nu engine 2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Kia Forte Koup vehicles with a Nu engine 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Kia Soul vehicles with a Gamma engine 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 model year Kia Soul vehicles with a Nu engine Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Documentation of repairs, expenses and other damages 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 12/07/2023 Case Name In re: Hyundai and Kia Engine Litigation II, Case No. 8:18-cv-02223-JLS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing 09/08/2023 Settlement Website KiaEngineClassSettlement.com Claims Administrator Kia Engine Class Settlement Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4133 Portland, OR 97208-4133 info@KiaEngineClassSettlement.com 800-944-1025 Class Counsel Steve W Berman HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Matthew Schelkopf SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC Gretchen Freeman Cappio KELLER ROHRBACK LLP Defense Counsel Shon Morgan QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP [GN] KIMCO STAFFING: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that California staffing agency failed to protect its employees' sensitive data, a former employee alleging the company hasn't disclosed a data breach said in his proposed class action complaint. Kawauna Pittman's social security number was taken from Kimco Staffing Services Inc.'s systems and posted on the dark web, according to his complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 18. The company hasn't notified employees or the California attorney general of the alleged data breach, the complaint says. COURT: S.D. Cal. TRACK DOCKET: No. 3:23-cv-01719 [GN] KIMCO STAFFING: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Pittman Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAWAUNA PITTMAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01719-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Kimco current and former employees' personal information including social security numbers, from unauthorized access. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class members by, recklessly failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard its employees' Sensitive Information; failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; and failing to provide the Plaintiff and Class members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. To date, the Defendant has neither notified its employees nor the California Attorney General of such breach, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff and Class members have spent, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and money trying to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach and dealing with actual fraud and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence; invasion of privacy; breach of implied contract; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of confidence; and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Customer Records Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act. The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant in California. The Defendant is a staffing company which hires individuals as its employees and provides them with jobs at various companies in the States of California, Arizona and Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com KOPPERS RAILROAD: Faces Brock FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZACH BROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOPPERS RAILROAD STRUCTURES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01013-UNA (D. Del., September 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a nonexempt, hourly employee. Koppers Railroad Structures, Inc. is a provider of railroad engineer, construction, maintenance, and other related services based in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com LIV UNLTD: Williams Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Porters ------------------------------------------------------- RICKY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIV UNLTD LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08189 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all straight time wages, failure to timely pay wages, and failure to furnish wage statements. Mr. Williams worked for the Defendant as a porter from on or about August 10, 2018 until on or about July 12, 2023. LIV UnLtd LLC is a global hospitality company, with its principal place of business located at 622 Third Avenue, 14th Floor, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com LOS TRES: Fails to Pay Waitress Minimum & OT Wages, Jumbo Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CARMITA JUMBO, v. LOS TRES POTRILLOS DE JC CORP (DBA LOS TRES POTRILLOS) and PEDRO LUNA, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-06850 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendants were required to pay and compensate the Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour; however, the Plaintiff was only compensated at a rate of $10.83 per hour. The Defendants were required to compensate the Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, the Defendants only compensated the Plaintiff at a rate of $10.83 per hour including tips, per week and failed to pay the Plaintiff her lawful overtime pay for that period from January 2019 to the present. The Defendants allegedly maintain a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the minimum and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from January 2019 to the present, where her primary work duty was as a waitress. Los Tres Potrillos is an elite authentic Mexican food restaurant in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com LOUISIANA: Subjects Prisoners to Inhumane Condition, VOTE Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, a membership organization on behalf of itself and its members; and MYRON SMITH, DAMARIS JACKSON, NATE WALKER and DARRIUS WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections; TIMOTHY HOOPER, in his official capacity as Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary; MISTY STAGG, in her official capacity as Director of Prison Enterprises, Inc.; the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS; and PRISON ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La., September 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth Amendment, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, and involuntary servitude under Thirteenth Amendment. The case arises from the unconstitutional and gratuitously harsh conditions of forced agricultural labor at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Tunica, Louisiana also known as "Angola." According to the complaint, the State of Louisiana subjects incarcerated men to cruel, inhuman, and degrading forced labor at Angola. Often overseen by armed guards, these individuals, most of whom are Black, must walk or ride into the fields, sometimes carrying hoes and shovels, to dig ditches and pick plantation crops on the so-called "Farm Line." Some are paid two cents an hour for their labor. Many are paid nothing at all. They are forced to work in extreme weather conditions, without basic safety gear or modern agricultural equipment. The combination of these intolerable and obviously dangerous conditions subjects putative class members to the substantial risk of serious psychological and physical harm due to their prolonged exposure to extremely dangerous heat indexes. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for the inhumane, discriminatory, and unconstitutional practices and conditions they face at Angola every day. Voice of the Experienced (VOTE) is a grassroots nonprofit organization comprised of currently and formerly incarcerated people, headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC) is the administrative arm of the State of Louisiana responsible for administering the State's correctional facilities. Prison Enterprises, Inc. is a division of Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC). [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lydia Wright, Esq. Samantha Bosalavage, Esq. Claude-Michael Comeau, Esq. Kenyatta Barthelemy, Esq. THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 E-mail: lwright@defendla.org sbosalavage@defendla.org ccomeau@defendla.org kbarthelemy@defendla.org - and - Oren Nimni, Esq. Amaris Montes, Esq. RIGHTS BEHIND BARS 416 Florida Avenue NW, Ste. 26152 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 455-4399 E-mail: oren@rightsbehindbars.org amaris@rightsbehindbars.org LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Nov 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 18 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Lumen Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: LUMN) between March 11, 2019 and July 14, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 14, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Lumen securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Lumen class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17736 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 14, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lumen owned and/or still owns thousands of miles of cables wrapped in lead, a known neurotoxin, within the U.S.; (2) the foregoing has harmed and posed the risk of further harming the environment, exposed Company employees, and the general public, thereby posing a significant public health risk and environmental pollution risk; (3) Lumen was on notice about the damage and risks presented by these lead-covered cables but did not disclose them as a potential threat to everyday people and communities, as well as failed to provide adequate lead training to employees; (4) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk of governmental and regulatory oversight and enforcement action, as well as legal and reputational harm; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Lumen class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17736 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Mclemore Suit Over 8.11% Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MCLEMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a CENTURYLINK, INC., KATE JOHNSON, CHRIS STANSBURY, JEFFREY K. STOREY, and INDRANEEL DEV, Case No. 3:23-cv-01290 (W.D. La., Sept. 15, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Lumen securities between March 11, 2019 and July 14, 2023, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover 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, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Lumen owned and/or still owns thousands of miles of cables wrapped in lead, a known neurotoxin, within the U.S.; the foregoing has harmed and posed the risk of further harming the environment, exposed Company employees, and the general public; Lumen was on notice about the damage and risks presented by these lead-covered cables; and all the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk of governmental and regulatory oversight and enforcement action, as well as legal and reputational harm. On July 9, 2023, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an article reporting that more than 2,000 lead-covered cables previously used by Ma Bell and, subsequently, by various successor telecommunication companies, were degrading and leaching into soil and groundwater, posing a significant public health risk. On this news, Lumen's stock price fell $0.13 per share, or 5.94%, to close at $2.06 per share on July 10, 2023. On July 14, 2023, during post-market hours, the WSJ published article citing various analyst and market concerns related to Lumen's exposure to enormous liabilities related to its lead-sheathed cables. On this news, Lumen's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 8.11%, to close at $1.70 per share the next trading day on July 17, 2023. Then, on August 1, 2023, on a quarterly earnings call, Lumen's executive management addressed the recent reporting on the Company's exposure to liability related to lead-sheathed cables, disclosing that, by Lumen's own estimation, not more than 35,000 miles of its copper network could contain lead. In a response to an analyst's inquiry regarding whether Defendants "had any discussions around remediation" for the lead-sheathed cable issue, Company management noted that Lumen had spent considerable time determining how much lead was in the Company's telecom system and could not estimate potential remediation costs. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. The Plaintiff acquired Lumen securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Lumen is a telecommunications and technology company that provides various integrated products and services to businesses and residential customers in the U.S. and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. O'Bell, Esq. O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC 3500 North Hullen Street Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 456-8677 Facsimile: (504) 456-8653 E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com MAPFRE USA: Conway Sues Over Disclosure of Drivers' License Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN CONWAY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MAPFRE U.S.A. CORP. and THE COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12076 (D. Mass., Sept. 8, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf and all other individuals, who had their driver's license information disclosed because of MAPFRE's sales efforts and during MAPFRE's data disclosure incident in violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, MAPFRE knowingly chose to obtain, use, and disclose federally protected drivers' license numbers and other motor vehicle record information to grease the wheels of its online insurance sales. MAPFRE chose to add a feature to its existing online sales platform whereby an individual's driver's license number would auto-populate for anyone that would enter a bare minimum of publicly available information about that individual. By adding the auto-population feature to its online quoting process, which MAPFRE knowingly chose to do, MAPFRE intended to make the displayed information, which it obtained and used to create the feature, easily accessible to anyone who entered basic information into its system, says the suit. As a result of MAPFRE's data disclosure, Plaintiff's privacy has been invaded, his sensitive drivers' license information is now in the hands of criminals, and he faces a substantially increased risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit asserts. MAPFRE U.S.A. Corp. and The Commerce Insurance Company write property and casualty insurance policies in 14 states across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Warns HR of No-Poach Agreements Amid Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stacy Thomas of Human Resource Director reports that following a recent appeals court decision concerning a class action suit against McDonald's franchise restaurants, employers and HR professionals will want to be more careful in their use of employee noncompete or "no-poach" agreements. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, decided last month to repeal a district court's dismissal of an antitrust class action lawsuit against McDonald's Corp. The suit, Deslandes v. McDonald's, charged McDonald's for unfair use of "no-hire" and "non-solicitation" clauses. McDonald's franchise agreements contain a clause prohibiting franchisers from hiring workers who are employed at other McDonald's stores, and for six months after that employment ends. This clause contributed to wage suppression and impeded workers' ability to move freely to other jobs, plaintiffs claimed. Class action, no-poach case rejected by district court Employees attempted a class-action suit in 2021, saying McDonald's violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which restricts employee contracts (among others) that limit market competition. A district court dismissed the plaintiff's request for class certification, and the appeals court has reversed that decision and sent it back to trial. The decision signals a change in the tide for no-poach agreement lawsuits, said Duane Morris partner Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and HR professionals who use these clauses to limit employee turnover or wage increases need to be cautious. "If you are in HR, you need to realize that antitrust laws can be divided into two areas. One is civil liability, where lawsuits are brought by people for money, and that's what the McDonald's case was about. But antitrust laws also have criminal provisions," said Maatman. "And the Biden administration in the United States has been very vocal about bringing antitrust criminal investigations against companies for use of no-poach agreements. And there have been criminal indictments brought against business executives and HR personnel in various industries." Faculty at universities, engineers in aerospace, and skilled tech workers in Silicon Valley have all been at the center of class-action no-poach litigations, Maatman said. In each case, determinations are made on what the labor market is for that particular industry, and if no-poach clauses caused wage suppression or are anti-competitive. Decision lays groundwork for other class action suits against employers Reuters reported in 2021 that McDonald's stated the nationwide class action suit could include millions of workers, with damages of $2.74 billion. In that case, the original plaintiff, Leilani Delandes, was denied a higher-paying job at a corporate McDonald's because she was working at a franchised store. The district judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the labor markets for low-skilled, low-paid workers are geographically small, therefore a nation-wide class action suit would not be appropriate. "So now with this appeal, and a decision by a higher court, the Seventh Circuit, it's a bit of a roadmap, so to speak, or a blueprint, for workers and their attorneys on how to bring these sorts of cases," Maatman said. HR "in best position" to stop antitrust violations The Department of Justice (DOJ) with the FTC announced in 2018 that it would be treating no-poach clauses as criminal offences going forward, according to its 2016 DOJ Guidance For Human Resources Professionals. The document singles out HR professionals as uniquely positioned to prevent antitrust violations. "HR professionals often are in the best position to ensure that their companies' hiring practices comply with the antitrust laws," the Guidance reads. "In particular, HR professionals can implement safeguards to prevent inappropriate discussions or agreements with other firms seeking to hire the same employees." [GN] MERRILL LYNCH: Antonio Pereira Sues Over Lender Liability --------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Pereira Association & Pasargada Association, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., CITIBANK INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., JP MORGAN, JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 23-cv-08160 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023), is brought pursuant to Brazil's National Environment Policy Act for lender liability against the Defendants arising from loans and financing which directly promoted, and continues to promote, significant environmental degradation in the Brazilian State of Minas Gerais, as well as continuing harm to the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class members. The mining company Vale, S.A. (the "borrower" or "Vale") has constructed high risk tailings dams within the Metropolitana de Belo Horizonte mesoregion in the state of Minas Gerais known as the "Iron Quadrangle." The Defendants, a group of banks, provided essential financing to Vale, a company notorious for committing horrendous environmental ruination in Brazil. Defendants profited from their customer's environmental degradation that was imposed upon Plaintiffs and the proposed Class without any concern for the devastation that has ravaged those communities. Without the funding by Defendants, the construction, operation, and expansions of Vale's dams would have been impossible because Vale did not have the financial resources to perpetuate its systemic decimation of the environment within the geographic area occupied by the Association Plaintiffs herein. That destruction is ongoing and the extraordinary losses it causes the Plaintiff Class increase every day. Vale engages in mining operations throughout Brazil. This Complaint, however, focuses on the mining operations in an approximately 7,000 square kilometer area of Minas Gerais, the Iron Quadrangle. These mining operations have polluted and contaminated, and continue to pollute and contaminate, Plaintiffs' land, air, and water within the Iron Quadrangle. Defendant's financing of Vale's mining operations has directly funded the ongoing pollution and contamination of the environment, which has caused significant losses to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class. Brazilian law establishes a strict liability standard to ensure protection of the environment. Under Brazilian law, lenders are liable for pollution and contamination caused by the endeavors their loans financed, in addition to the liability of the entities whose endeavors directly caused the pollution and contamination. Thus, Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiffs under Brazilian law. The Plaintiffs seek to represent and protect the interests of the environment, including the interests of the flora and fauna, in and around the dams that have been, and continue to be, destroyed by the mining operations financed by Defendants. Plaintiffs also seek to represent and protect the interests of the community associations and persons in and around this area that have been, and continue to be, negatively impacted by the mining operations financed by Defendants. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' funding of Vale's mining activities, Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries to themselves and their families, a reduction or elimination of their property values, a reduction in their use and enjoyment of their real and personal property, and a collapse of their businesses/livelihoods all of which continues to be deleterious to their health and well-being, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are communities of several thousand residents in the district of Nova Lima in the city of Nova Lima and within the district of Antonio Pereira in the City of Ouro Preto. The Defendants are lenders who have loaned more than $ 17.2 billion USD to Vale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Ph Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: astraus@milberg.com - and - Roy L. Mason, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: rmason@milberg.com - and - Glenn Phillips, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gphillips@milberg.com - and - Greg Coleman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TTN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gcoleman@milberg.com META PLATFORMS: Collect Data Without Consent, Dye Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN DYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00509-BO (E.D.N.C., Sept. 15, 2023) alleges violation of the federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant surreptitiously tracked North Carolinians permanent disability placard renewals, new car registrations, identification card renewals, and other activity on the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") online payments portal, https://payments.ncdot.gov website, down to the very last button click. The Defendant uses this information to help it deliver targeted advertisements across its social networks, including facebook.com and instagram.com, among others. Because neither Meta nor the DMV asked North Carolinian drivers for their express written consent to obtain or use this highly sensitive information for advertising, says the suit. Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com - and - Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com - and - Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com META PLATFORMS: Collects Non-Users' Health Info, E.H. Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ E.H. and C.S., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04784 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2023) alleges that, through an invisible tracker called the Meta Pixel, Meta contemporaneously acquired the contents of communications between the Plaintiffs and Class Members and Covered Entities. The Plaintiffs contend that Meta's interceptions were intentional. The foundational purpose of the Pixel is to clandestinely intercept communications made on third-party websites and share their contents with Meta for use in Meta's own business operations. The data Meta collects includes information such as specific prescriptions, diagnoses, and symptoms that even close friends and family might not have known about -- but Meta did. Furthermore, these transmissions occur even if, like the Plaintiffs, consumers do not have a Facebook account. Meta did not obtain legal authorization from the Plaintiffs and Class Members to obtain these communications, as required by HIPAA and CMIA. Nor did Meta require the Covered Entities to obtain legal authorization to share these communications, the suit claims. The Covered Entities also did not validly consent to the Meta's interception of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' health care communications. Meta's purpose in acquiring the contents of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' communications was tortious, criminal, and designed to violation state statutes. Meta's illicit interception of non-users' sensitive health data violates Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the common law and California Constitution rights to privacy, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as unjustly enriching Meta and tortiously converting non-users' data to Meta's own use, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs and Class Members seek monetary damages for the greater of (i) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and Class Members and any profits made by Meta as a result of the violation or (ii) statutory damages of whichever is greater of $100 a day for each violation or $10,000. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of people without a Facebook account whose health information was obtained without their consent by Meta from a Covered Entity. Plaintiff E.H. is a resident of Oklahoma. Plaintiff C.S. is a resident of Massachusetts. Each Plaintiff visited the website and used the services of a Covered Entity that provided online treatment to patients. Each Plaintiff created an account with that Covered Entity using their full name, address, email, and phone number. Meta is a multinational technology conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Previn Warren, Esq. Abigail Burman, Esq. Mathew Jasinski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 401 9th Street NW Suite 630 Washington DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 386-9610 E-mail: pwarren@motleyrice.com aburman@motleyrice.com mjaskinski@motleyrice.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. Frank Busch, Esq. WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 357-8900 E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com busch@wvbrlaw.com META PLATFORMS: Faces LLaMA Infringement Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that five award-winning authors allege in a proposed class action that Meta Platforms used their copyrighted works to train its AI language models without authorization. According to the 18-page lawsuit, Meta first released LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI) in February 2023 as a suite of AI software designed to respond to user prompts with "convincingly natural," human-like text outputs. However, the lawsuit alleges that Meta, in a "clear infringement" of the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights, "trained" LLaMA using "massive amounts of text" from the authors' copyrighted books and screenplays, "without consent, without credit, and without compensation," the case alleges. "Though a large language model is a software program, it is not created the way most software programs are -- that is, by human software engineers writing code," the filing explains. "Rather, a large language model is 'trained' by copying massive amounts of text from various sources and feeding these copies into the model." Although Meta claims that LLaMA's training dataset consists of "publicly available" information that is "compatible with open sourcing," the complaint contends that the company pulls data from Bibliotik, an illegal "shadow library" website that contains a large quantity of copyrighted material. Per the suit, Meta admits that it sourced a portion of the LLaMA training materials from Books3, a major section of a dataset known as The Pile. Public statements released by the creator of Books3 reveal that it represents "all of Bibliotik" and contains 196,640 books, the complaint says. The plaintiffs claim that many of their written works appear in the Books3 dataset Meta used to train LLaMA. As a result, the AI product now relies on their copyrighted works to fuel its responses, the case shares. "Plaintiffs never authorized Meta to make copies of their Infringed Works, make derivative works, publicly display copies (or derivative works), or distribute copies (or derivative works)," the case states. "All those rights belong exclusively to Plaintiffs under copyright law." The filing notes that Meta originally launched the LLaMA language models as selectively available to organizations that request access but reportedly plans to make the next version of the product commercially available. Even so, the LLaMA language models were leaked online in March 2023 and continue to circulate, the case says. The lawsuit looks to represent all people or entities nationwide that own a United States copyright in any work that was used as training data for the LLaMA language models during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] MGM RESORTS: Lassoff Sues Over Personal Info Negligent Handling --------------------------------------------------------------- SAUL & SHIRLEY LASSOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-20419-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2023) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a class consisting of Pennsylvania customers whose personal information was negligently handled by the Defendants between March 1, 2023 and November 30, 2023, inclusive. This is a class action on behalf of several million Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Las Vegas and United States customers exposed to identity fraud following the negligent mishandling of personal information by Defendants MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment, Inc. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, members of the immediate family of each of the individual Defendants, any subsidiary or affiliate of the Defendants and the directors, officers and employees of the Defendants or its subsidiaries or affiliates, or any entity in which any excluded person has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any excluded person. On Sept 7, 2023, the Defendants announced the negligent mishandling of customers personal information, and stated that the Plaintiffs personal information (i.e. name, address, social security, driver's license, bank account and credit card numbers) had been compromised. The Defendants also allegedly engaged in a scheme to hide their negligent handling of the Plaintiffs' personal information, breaching their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff and the Class, causing damages to the Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit. Plaintiffs Saul and Shirley Lassoff are residents of Pennsylvania. Mr. and Mrs. Lassoff were MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment, Inc. loyalty member customers and Credit customers of the Defendants during the Class Period. MGM is an American global hospitality and entertainment company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel Lassoff, Esq. LASSOFF LAW LLC Suite 2343, 5006 Wellington Ave Ventnor, NJ 08406 Telephone: (609) 375-7491 E-mail: lawfirm25@aol.com MIDFIRST BANK: Dudurkaewa Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MidFirst Bank. The case is styled as Petimat Dudurkaewa, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MidFirst Bank, Case No. 5:23-cv-00817-R (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking. MidFirst Bank is a privately owned financial institution based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry F. Stokes, Esq. RUBENSTEIN & PITTS PLLC 1503 E 19th St Edmond, OK 73013 Phone: (405) 340-1900 Fax: (405) 340-1001 Email: tstokes@oklawpartners.com MIGHTY CRAB: Faces Chi Ming Yau Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- CHI MING YAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MIGHTY CRAB NY 12110 INC., d/b/a THE MIGHTY CRAB LATHAM, ZHUI ZHENG, and AMY CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01185-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., September 15, 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 compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide detailed paystub information, and failure to timely pay wages. The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender and miscellaneous worker at The Mighty Crab Latham, located at 675 Troy-Schenectady Rd., Latham, New York from September 21, 2022, to August 9, 2023. The Mighty Crab NY 12110 Inc., doing business as The Mighty Crab Latham, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business at 675 Troy-Schenectady Rd., Latham, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongjin Bae, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite #1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: ybae@hanglaw.com MILANO BROTHERS: Bueno Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Bueno, and others similarly situated v. MILANO BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., RICHARD MILANO and DENNIS MILANO, Individually, Case No. 0:23-cv-06838 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $20, $22, $23, and $24 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from 2017 until August 2023, where he worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees; and at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. Moreover, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to maintain accurate record keeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook. The Defendants owned and operated ZOCCOLA LLC (DBA TAVOLA), a corporate entity located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com MOBILE MINI: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics -------------------------------------------------------------- JUNIOR SMITH, GREGG QUAGLIANO, MIGUEL LUPIAN, MARTIN HIDALGO, TODD SAMPSON, and JIM CAVANAUGH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOBILE MINI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13784 (N.D. Ill., September 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant actively collected, stored, and used the biometrics of employees, including the Plaintiffs, through its biometric timekeeping system, without providing notice, obtaining informed written consent, or publishing data retention policies in violation of the provisions of 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA. Specifically, the Defendant used the camera and videotaping technology in its trucks to collect and store its drivers' biometrics, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and the Class were all employed by the Defendant as truck drivers in Illinois during periods of time within the past five years. Mobile Mini, Inc. is a company that specializes in the transportation of portable storage units, located at 801 Adlai Stevenson Drive, Springfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Burnett Antitrust Class Suit for $55M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Lauck of Missouri Lawyers reports that a second defendant in a pending antitrust class-action lawsuit against the real estate industry has settled for $55 million. Mike Ketchmark of Ketchmark & McCreight said in an emailed statement that the settlement with RE/MAX included not only money but also an agreement it would no longer require home sellers to pay buyer's agents. "The biggest part of the settlement is the massive changes to RE/MAX's business practices," Ketchmark said. Ketchmark, along with attorneys from Boulware Law and Williams Dirks Dameron, represent a class of home sellers who allege that rules set by the National Association of Realtors restrain competition by requiring home sellers to pay a 6 percent commission that is split between their own agent and that of the buyer. The suit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, is set for a jury trial starting Oct. 16. The remaining defendants are the Realtors association, as well as HomeServices of America Inc. and Keller Williams Realty. "Unless Home Services, NAR, and Keller Williams finally admit they are wrong and change their ways we will ask the jury to return the money to the 250,000 homeowners in Missouri who were victims of this alleged conspiracy," Ketchmark said in the statement. The companies have denied the claims. In a Sept. 18 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, RE/MAX said the settlement covers the claims in the Missouri case and a similar suit in the Northern District of Illinois. "RE/MAX continues to deny the material allegations of the complaints in the Lawsuits," the company said. "RE/MAX entered into the Settlement after considering the risks and costs of continuing the litigation." Another defendant in the case, Anywhere Real Estate Inc., settled for $83.5 million earlier this month. The court has not yet approved either settlement. The case is Burnett v. National Association of Realtors et al., 4:19-cv-00332. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Flores Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FLORES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Brian Flores, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The National Football League, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-871, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, who are current and former coaches for NFL teams, have sued the National Football League (NFL) and various member teams for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and several state laws. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in an opinion dated March 1, 2023. It 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 NFL; it denied the motion to compel arbitration of 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, and the Defendants cross-moved for reconsideration, seeking to compel arbitration of the remaining claims. The Defendants sought to compel arbitration of Flores' claims against the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans arguing, inter alia, that the arbitration provisions in his recent contract with the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the NFL Constitution incorporated therein, applied retroactively to claims against any NFL team. They alternatively sought to compel arbitration of his claims against the Denver Broncos because those claims arose when he was coaching for the New England Patriots. His contract with the Patriots had an arbitration agreement that applied to claims against any NFL team. Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied both the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' motions for reconsideration. Judge Caproni held that Mr. Flores did not have a valid arbitration agreement with the Steelers because the Defendants had not proven that the arbitration agreement was part of a valid contract. Section 12 of the Flores-Steelers Agreement states that the contract would "become valid and binding upon each party only when and if it will be approved by the Commissioner of the NFL;" in the version of the contract filed by Defendants in support of their motion to compel arbitration, the Commissioner's signature line was blank. Accordingly, the Flores-Steelers Agreement submitted by the Defendants, by its own terms, was not "valid and binding." The Court also held that the arbitration agreement contained in the NFL Constitution and incorporated into the Flores-Patriots Agreement was unenforceable because the NFL retained the unilateral right to modify the NFL Constitution and the arbitration agreement, rendering the arbitration agreement illusory according to Massachusetts state law. According to Judge Caproni, as the parties moved 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. Moreover, Massachusetts law precludes enforcement of the arbitration agreement incorporated into the Flores-Patriots Agreement because the contract is illusory; because an illusory contract is no contract at all, severance is not possible. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration extensively relitigates their arguments that the arbitration agreements are unconscionable and prevent effective vindication of their statutory claims, which the Court previously considered at length and rejected. As in their opposition to the motion to compel arbitration, the Plaintiffs primarily base their arguments on their speculation that the NFL Commissioner will necessarily be biased as an arbitrator. Judge Caproni pointed out that the Plaintiffs, in essence, are asking the Court to fashion a specific rule out of whole cloth to protect them from potential arbitrator bias that may never manifest itself. To do so would be in direct violation of the Federal Arbitration Act's admonition against carving out rules disfavoring the enforcement of arbitration agreements from generally applicable contract law. The appellate case is captioned Flores v. The National Football League, Case No. 23-1225, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 6, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN FLORES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Defendants-Appellees 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 NAVISTAR CANADA: Agrees to Settle MaxxForce Engines Suit for $14.5M ------------------------------------------------------------------- On September 18, 2023 Truckin of trucknews.com reports that a $14.5-million settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Navistar over the sale and performance of its MaxxForce engines in Canada. The defendants in the suit are Navistar Canada, Navistar, Navistar International Corp., and Harbour International Trucks. "To be a member of the class action, individuals or businesses must be resident of Canada (excluding Quebec), who on or before Feb. 24, 2022 purchased or leased one or more Class Vehicles for more than 30 days," Foreman & Company said in a release. "Class Vehicles include 2011-2014 model year Navistar vehicles equipped with a MaxxForce 11-, 13-, or 15-liter engine using EGR technology. This includes the following Navistar truck brands: PayStar, WorkStar, TranStar, 9900i, LoneStar, and ProStar." The settlement must be approved by the Court before it becomes effective. A hearing has been set to approve the settlement agreement on Nov. 30, 2023. Class Members have the right to submit comments or objections to Class Counsel for consideration by the Court in respect of the Settlement and the fee request of Class Counsel. The deadline for those comments is Nov. 17, 2023. [GN] NETWORK SOLUTIONS: 40 Acres Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs 40 Acres & 1 Mule, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 25, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled 40 Acres & 1 Mule, LLC et al., Plaintiffs v. Network Solutions, LLC et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-1215 (VAB), in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, New Haven. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that their website was "intentionally knocked down and erased . . . from the Internet" and that their rights were violated under Conn. Gen. Stat. and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Around September 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this action in Connecticut State Court, and Defendants timely removed it to District Court for the District of Connecticut. On October 3, 2022, the Defendants then moved to transfer and to dismiss the case. On December 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint, and the District Court found Defendant's pending motion to dismiss and to transfer moot. The First Amended Class Action Complaint added class action allegation not previously alleged. On December 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The SAC added new Defendants: New Ventures; Paul Pimes and Gianni Mangohig, who are employees or agents of Network Solutions. On January 27, 2023, Defendants filed another motion to transfer or dismiss. On March 16, 2023, the Defendants renewed their motion to transfer or to dismiss and added a move to strike class allegations. Defendants have moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida, or in the alternative, to dismiss their Second Amended Class Action Complaint and to strike the class allegations. On August 25, 2023, Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an Order that the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as to certain Defendants, New Ventures Services Corp., Paul Pimes, and Gianni Mangohig, is GRANTED. The motion to transfer venue by Defendants Network Solutions and Web.com to the Middle District of Florida was also GRANTED. Because the remainder of the case, the one against Network Solutions, LLC and Web.com Group, Inc., will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint and to strike class allegations was DENIED as moot without prejudice to renewal there. The appellate case is captioned as 40 Acres & 1 Mule, LLC v. Network Solutions, LLC, Case No. 23-1252, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Sept. 11, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants 40 Acres & 1 Mule, LLC and Go Score, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 408-1197 Defendants-Appellees Network Solutions, LLC, et al., are represented by: Timothy B. Hyland, Esq. HYLAND LAW PLLC 1818 Library Street, Suite 500 Reston, VA 20190 Telephone: (703) 956-3566 - and - John C. Matulis, Esq. JANUSZEWSKI, MCQUILLAN & DENIGRIS 165 West Main Street, P.O. Box 150 New Britain, CT 06050 Telephone: (860) 225-7667 NEW MEXICO: NMHSD Files 10th Cir. Appeal ---------------------------------------- KARI ARMIJO, Acting Secretary of New Mexico Human Services Department, et al. has filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 6, 2023, an appeal captioned KARI ARMIJO, Acting Secretary of New Mexico Human Services Department v. ABIGAIL KNOWLTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, OSCAR DANIEL LOPEZ-GARCIA, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, MICHAELA BACA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and TERRIANNE SCAZZERO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 23-2143. This appeal was filed following entry of an order & judgment by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Aug. 1, 2023, dismissing the States' appeal from a district court order interpreting an injunction in the case captioned DEBRA HATTEN-GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID R. SCRASE, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department, Defendant, Case No. 1:88-CV-00385-KG-GBW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The interlocutory appeal stems from a long-running class action suit challenging the State of New Mexico's administration of federal social benefits programs. The State seeks review of a district court order interpreting an injunction. In 1988, Debra Hatten-Gonzales sued the Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to challenge how the State processed applications for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP"), Medicaid, and other federal benefits. The district court certified a class of benefits applicants. The parties settled. The resulting consent decree specified how the State must process applications. In 1998, the district court modified the consent decree and adopted it as an injunction. In 2018, the court again modified the consent decree. The current consent decree requires the State to follow federal laws and guidelines regarding benefit application processing timelines. It provides that a case file review is "necessary to measure compliance and to verify that systemic or programmatic barriers to proper application determinations and access to benefits do not exist within the State's application processing practices." The State must periodically permit a case file review for benefits programs based on a statewide representative sample. The State complies when the case file review reveals no "systematic or programmatic barriers" to benefits access. The consent decree defines "systemic or programmatic barrier" as a "policy or prevalent practice implemented at one or more of the Income Support Division offices that results in the failure to comply with federal law in the SNAP and/or Medicaid program and is not due to an isolated event or action." On July 25, 2022, the special master who had been appointed to administer the consent decree submitted a report to the district court recommending case file review procedures. His report recommended that the case file review cover 288 randomly sampled cases submitted between March and August 2022, including applications that were submitted based on federal government waivers to certain application requirements that were granted due to the pandemic. By contrast, the special master also recommended that the case review sample exclude certain Disaster SNAP applications related to New Mexico wildfires. The district court adopted the special master's recommendation. It rejected the State's objection that because pandemic-related federally approved waivers and special circumstances are isolated events and actions under the decree, cases subject to pandemic-related waivers should not be included in the sample universe. Hence, it overruled the objection. The State appealed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1), seeking review of an interlocutory order modifying an injunction. It then moved in district court to stay proceedings there during the appeal. Granting the motion in part and denying it in part, the court certified the appeal was frivolous as to any matter unrelated to the case review. The State next moved the district court to dismiss for lack of Article III jurisdiction, arguing that a viable class no longer exists. That issue is pending in the district court. The State challenged the district court's rejection of its argument that the federal pandemic waivers constituted an "isolated event or action" warranting exclusion of pandemic-waiver cases from the case file review. The Tenth Circuit rejected this challenge. It said the State has failed to show the Tenth Circuit has Section 1292(a)(1) jurisdiction. The district court did not expand or modify the injunction. Its determination that the federal pandemic waivers were not an "isolated event or action" was a reasonable interpretation of the consent decree. The court did not alter the status of the parties, but merely restated their relationship in new terms. It t did not change the consent decree's compliance mandates, enforcement mechanisms, or otherwise alter the command of the earlier injunction, relax its prohibitions, or release any respondent from its grip. Because it lacks interlocutory jurisdiction under Section 1292(a)(1) to review the district court's order, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. The briefing schedule in the present Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Kari Armijo's docketing statement was due September 20, 2023; and -- Appellants Kari Armijo, Michaela Baca, Abigail Knowlton, Oscar Daniel Lopez-Garcia, and Terrianne Scazzero's notice of appearance was due on September 20, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ABIGAIL KNOWLTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Sovereign Hager, Esq. NEW MEXICO CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY 301 Edith Boulevard, NE Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 255-2840 - and - Daniel Yohalem, Esq. DANIEL YOHALEM, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1121 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 988-5324 Defendants-Appellants KARI ARMIJO, Acting Secretary of New Mexico Human Services Department, et al., are represented by: John Robert Emery, Esq. NEW MEXICO HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 2348 1474 Rodeo Road Santa Fe, NM 87505 Telephone: (505) 476-7048 NEW YORK LIFE: LCG Seeks Confidential Docs Maintained Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krohnengold et al., v. New York Life Inc. Co. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01778-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), Third-party LCG submits a memorandum of law in support of its request to maintain under seal information contained in exhibits to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification: -- LCG_Associates_00000118 and 0221 (Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Jacob Schutz) (Exhibit 3); -- LCG_Associates_00016069 (Exhibit 13 to the Schutz Declaration) ("Exhibit 13"); and -- Brian Falco Deposition, page 35 (Exhibit 19 to the Schutz Declaration) ("Exhibit 19"). LCG withdraws its request to maintain the following under seal: -- LCG_Associates_00046726 (Exhibit 9 to the Schutz Declaration); -- LCG_Associates_00020498 (Exhibit 12 to the Schutz Declaration); And -- LCG_Associates_00000020 (Exhibit 21 to the Schutz Declaration) LCG further requests that the Court retain redactions related to Exhibits 3, 13, and 19. New York Life provides life insurance, wealth management, estate and retirement planning, and investment services. A copy of the LCG's motion dated Sept. 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZtkxQT at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for third-party LCG Associates, Inc.: Tamara D. Baggett, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 2850 North Harwood Street, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201-2640 Telephone: (214) 210-1200 Facsimile: (214) 210-1201 E-mail: tbaggett@bakerlaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Dismiss Held in Abeyance --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.S.M. et al., v. New York City Department of Education, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00705 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 7, 2020), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee entered an order on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and order on motion for partial summary judgment. The motions are held in abeyance pending resolution of the issues relating to class certification. The nature of suit states Civil Rights of Handicapped Child. New York City Department of Education is the department of the government of New York City that manages the city's public school system.[CC] NORTHSTAR ENERGY: Hamilton Seeks Piping Designers' OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- MARK HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-03501 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 18, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other NorthStar employees like him regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week but NorthStar did not pay them the proper overtime rate. Instead, NorthStar generally paid him and the workers like him only their regular hourly rate. For example, during the pay period from January 2, 2023, to January 8, 2023, his hourly rate was $42 per hour. He worked 63.5 hours that week but was only paid "straight time" of $42 for each hour. His nondiscretionary bonuses were also not taken into consideration. In other words, his overtime pay was not paid based on all remuneration paid to Hamilton, as required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff says. Mr. Hamilton represents a collective of similarly situated workers under the FLSA. This FLSA Collective is defined as: All current and former employees of NorthStar Energy Services, Inc. who were, at any point in the three years between the filing of this complaint and the entry of final judgment, paid on an hourly basis, but whose overtime compensation was not at least 1.5x their regular rate of pay. Mr. Hamilton worked for NorthStar as a "Sr. Piping Designer I" from August 2022 to August 2023. NorthStar provides engineering, design, procurement, construction and support services to the chemical, petrochemical, pipeline, oil & gas, bulk storage and terminal industries throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Verde, Esq. THE VERDE LAW FIRM, PLLC 4600 Highway 6 North, Suite 320 Houston, TX 77084 Telephone: (713) 909-4347 Facsimile: (713) 588-2431 E-mail: josh@verde-law.com ONTARIO: Court Endorses $33MM EMDC Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- CTVNewsLondon.ca reports that a Superior Court justice in London, Ont. has endorsed a class action settlement that will see the Province of Ontario pay $33-million to former inmates of the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC). Any inmates who served time in the detention centre from 2010 to 2021 are eligible for one of three separate payment levels -- $1,500, $12,500 or $35,000. Up to 12,000 people are eligible for compensation. An independent agency will determine the payout based on the level of physical or psychological suffering that inmates experienced, with some payments for families of inmates who died inside the facility. In a hearing, Justice Duncan Grace heard from almost two dozen people about their experiences in the EMDC. During the hearing, Grace described the settlement as "real compensation for people who suffered real harms…not life changing for most, but significant for many." [GN] OPENAI LP: Web Scraping Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Isaiah Poritz, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that plaintiffs in a wide-ranging consumer class action alleging OpenAI LP scraped private information from hundreds of millions of internet users dropped their lawsuit only a few months after filing the complaint in San Francisco federal court. The 16 plaintiffs are reserving their right to re-file the complaint, according to the voluntary dismissal docketed Sept. 15. The proposed class action alleged OpenAI and investor Microsoft Corp. violated a range of federal and state privacy and anti-hacking laws with an "unprecedented" web-scraping operation to harvest data used to train its popular generative AI programs ChatGPT and DALL-E. [GN] PANERA LLC: Luna Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities Under NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO LUNA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PANERA, LLC d/b/a PANERA BREAD, DOHERTY ENTERPRISES, LLC, DOHERTY BREADS, LLC, and FULFLLD, INC, Case No. 719096/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Sept. 14, 2023) seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated who are presently or were formerly working as food delivery drivers for the Defendants, pursuant to the New York Labor Law. This action seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the Plaintiffs from Defendants for money had and received, conversion, breach of contract and unjust enrichment resulting from a contractual agreement entered into by the Defendants and their customers, of which the Plaintiffs are third-party beneficiaries. Since approximately June 2022 and continuing through to the present, the Defendants have failed to remit all or a portion of the gratuities to its delivery drivers who delivered food to customers who placed online orders. Accordingly, customers are told, upon placing an online order, that they should tip the driver for the delivery. Customers did pay the gratuity/tip for the Named Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers, based upon the Defendants' promise and the belief and expectation that the money would be given to the delivery driver. The Defendants have allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay the tip to the Named Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers, and instead retained the money for their own benefit in violation of NYLL Article 6 section 196-d, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks for himself individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, compensation, including gratuities and unpaid benefits they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, liquidated damages and costs. Mr. Luna was and is a food delivery driver who worked for the Defendants in such capacity beginning in June 2022 through the present. Panera is bakery-cafe style restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rocco G. Avallone, Esq. AVALLONE & BELLISTRI, LLP 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3E7 Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 986-2500 E-mail: ravallone@lawyersab.com PEACOCK TV: Illegally Auto Renews Subscriptions, Winston Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY WINSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEACOCK TV LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08191 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, conversion, unjust enrichment/restitution, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged engagement in an illegal automatic renewal scheme with respect to its subscription plans for its Peacock TV media service. According to the complaint, when consumers sign up for the Peacock Subscriptions, the Defendant actually enrolls consumers in a program that automatically renews the Peacock Subscriptions from month-to-month or year-to-year and results in monthly or annual charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account. In doing so, the Defendant fails to provide the requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be made to California consumers under California's Automatic Renewal Law. As a result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages says the suit. Peacock TV LLC is an American video streaming service company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com - and - Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com PFIZER INC: Riccio Sues Over Products False Maximum Strength Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSE RICCIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-13843 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2023) contends that, by portraying the Robitussin PE Products as "MAXIMUM STRENGTH" decongestants and body aches/fever relievers, the Defendant misleads consumers into believing the ingredients are suited to providing the strongest decongestant and body aches/fever relief allowable over the counter. The Robitussin PE products include "Robitussin Adult MAXIMUM STRENGTH–Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu," "Robitussin Adult MAXIMUM STRENGTH– Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu Nighttime," and "Robitussin Adult MAXIMUM STRENGTH– Severe Multi-Symptom Cough Cold + Flu – Day and Night Value Pack." Despite marketing these Robitussin PE Products as "MAXIMUM STRENGTH," Pfizer knew the active nasal decongestant ingredient, phenylephrine hydrochloride, was not as strong as other decongestants. Indeed, studies have shown that phenylephrine hydrochloride is no more effective than a placebo. Additionally, the Products do not even contain the maximum dosage of acetaminophen, and are thus not deserving of the “MAXIMUM STRENGTH” label and representation, the Plaintiff contends. Thus, this "MAXIMUM STRENGTH" packaging is misleading because nasal decongestants that are actually effective—without the "MAXIMUM STRENGTH" claim—are available. For example, both oxymetazoline and pseudoephedrine are both available without a prescription, and the former may be purchased over the counter. Despite this knowledge, Pfizer chose to mislead consumers through its promotion of the Robitussin PE Products, with and without acetaminophen, as "MAXIMUM STRENGTH" decongestants and pain relievers. However, none of the Robitussin PE Products are "MAXIMUM STRENGTH." Rather than being honest and transparent, Pfizer makes this "MAXIMUM STRENGTH" representation in a knowingly false, misleading and deceptive manner, the suit claims. The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and as a class action on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of the Pfizer's Robitussin PE Products, for violation of State consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment. Ms. Riccio is a citizen of Illinois. She purchased Robitussin Severe Multi-Symptom Cough, Cold + Flu within the applicable statute of limitations period, most recently in 2023. Pfizer offers a variety of non-prescription drugs, including oral nasal decongestants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Nick Suciu III, Esq. Erin Ruben, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. Karl Amelchenko, Esq. Jimmy Mintz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com nsuciu@milberg.com eruben@milberg.com hbryson@milberg.com kamelchenko@milberg.com jmintz@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Daniel Tropin, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan J. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com PREMIER NUTRITION: Appeals Attorney's Fees Ruling in Montera Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for attorney fees and expenses in the lawsuit entitled Mary Beth Montera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Premier Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06980-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated New York consumers, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for alleged violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (GBL) in connection with its promotion and marketing of Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements. On August 12, 2022, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to $8,312,450 in statutory damages and $4,583,004.90 in prejudgment interest. The Court denied a motion for judgment as a matter of law filed by the Defendant, and as well as a motion to decertify the class. On October 18, 2022, Judge Seeborg denied the Defendant's motion for new trial. He further granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards for Class Representative. On April 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for award of attorneys' fees, and reimbursement of nontaxed expenses, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Richard Seeborg on Aug. 7, 2023. Judge Seeborg awarded the Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $6,853,502.78 and nontaxed expenses in the amount of $1,072,126.04. The court added that any motion or stipulation for attorney fees and costs incurred in litigating the prior and current fee motions must be filed no later than October 6, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Mary Beth Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 23-16162, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 7, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Premier Nutrition Corporation Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 14, 2023; and -- Appellant Premier Nutrition Corporation opening brief is due on November 6, 2023; -- Appellee Mary Beth Montera answering brief is due on December 5, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MARY BETH MONTERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 501 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 - and - Todd David Carpenter, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 - and - Eugene G. Iredale, Esq. Grace Jun, Esq. IREDALE AND YOO, APC 105 West F Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-1525 Defendant-Appellant PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, FKA Joint Juice, Inc., is represented by: Chad M. Drown, Esq. Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP 90 S. 7th Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 (612) 766-8138 PRIME HYDRATION: Faces Class Action Over PRIME Sports Drinks ------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff T.K. filed a class action lawsuit against Prime Hydration and its creators Logan Paul and Olajide Olayinka Williams Olatunji (KSI), claiming that they market PRIME sports drinks toward minors despite known health risks. Each can contains 200 milligrams of caffeine with high levels of caffeine associated with health issues such as rapid heart rate, heart palpitations, high blood pressure and potential disruption of sleep patterns, according to the Prime Hydration class action. "Defendants' uniform marketing is intentionally designed to drive sales and increase profits, including by targeting the positive health-conscious benefits of PRIME Energy it offers to consumers (including zero sugar, inclusion of electrolytes and that the Product is Vegan) and the young, unsuspecting consumers really believe that the Product is, in fact, a healthy hydration drink," the PRIME Logan Paul class action says. Prime Hydration made $250 million in first year and is marketed through social media to those 24 and younger, lawsuit claims Prime Hydration made $250 million in its first year and it is marketed through social media to youth with 61% of Paul's Instagram followers 24 or younger (KSI's is 63%) and nearly 80% of Paul's TikTok followers are 24 or younger, according to the Prime Logan Paul class action. In July, PRIME energy drinks were set to be recalled in Canada following a U.S. senator's request for an investigation into whether cans of the beverage contain unsafe levels of caffeine. The plaintiff is represented by J. Chris Sanders of Bahe Cook Handley and Nefzger along with Jennifer S. Czeisler and Edward W. Ciolko of Sterlington PLLC and James M. Evangelista of Evangelista Worley LLC. The PRIME class action lawsuit is T.K. v. Prime Hydration LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00476-GNS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky Louisville Division. [GN] PRIMIS BANK: Kline Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT KLINE, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,v. PRIMIS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00574 (E.D. Va., Sept. 8, 2023) is a class action against Primis for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Primis customers' sensitive information, including full names, Social Security numbers, and Taxpayer Identification numbers. On July 24, 2023, Defendant learned that one its IT vendor's networks had been penetrated by a cyberattack. According to the complaint, Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members personally identifiable information -- 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. Primis Bank is a Virginia-based bank that provides services to its customers including providing checking and savings accounts, administering loans, and providing credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Sarah G. Sauble, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Sarah@bbtrial.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Tlaib Suit Over Sale of Ineffective Drugs ----------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMAD TLAIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13840 (N.D. Ill., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and state consumer protection acts. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter oral nasal decongestants, containing the active ingredient Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendants market PE drugs to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC) has concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE drugs, the Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at treating nasal congestion, says the suit. Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Daniel Tropin, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com tropin@kolawyers.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan J. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MI 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Erin Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: eruben@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com - and - Karl Amelchenko, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: kamelchenko@milberg.com - and - Jimmy Mintz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Ave., 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 876-8200 E-mail: jmintz@milberg.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Cooper Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK W. COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS CO., INC., BANK OF AMERICA CORP., F&G ANNUITIES & LIFE, INC., and COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12067 (D. Mass., Sept. 7, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff and Class Members' names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers. On July 13, 2023, PBI notified certain Fidelity customers, including Plaintiff, that they were affected by a data breach involving the MOVEit software. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services and applications involving MOVEit, PSC stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff and Class Members' private information on its MOVEit transfer services software that was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems or of its customers' networks and systems, including PBI. These security vulnerabilities existed as far back as 2021. As a result of the breach, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants seeking redress for their unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) breach of third-party beneficiary contract; (iii) negligence per se; (iv) unjust enrichment; and (v) declaratory judgment. Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts based software company that offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com QUEBEC: Sued Over COVID-19 Fatalities, Lack of Response Planning ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Serebrin of The Squamish Chief reports that the Quebec government's failure to follow its pandemic-response plan as the novel coronavirus started circulating in other parts of the world in early 2020 led to preventable deaths in long-term care, a Montreal lawyer argued on September 18, 2023. Patrick Martin-Menard asked a judge to authorize a class-action lawsuit against the provincial government on behalf of all residents of public long-term care homes that experienced COVID-19 outbreaks in the first two waves of the pandemic, and on behalf of the families of those who died. By failing to implement an existing pandemic-response plan in early January 2020, the Quebec government and its health authorities breached their duty of care to the residents, Martin-Ménard told the Quebec Superior Court. "There was a plan in place since 2006, a road map of what was supposed to be done to prepare the public health-care system for a pandemic, and this plan included a number of measures that could be put in place to protect vulnerable people," Martin-Menard told reporters on September 18, 2023. "What we are alleging here is that if this plan had been activated, as it should have been in January 2020, we would probably have avoided the outbreaks that we have seen in (long-term care centres)." More than 5,000 people died in Quebec's long-term care centres during the period covered by the proposed lawsuit - between March 2020 and March 2021. Quebec's pandemic-response plan, Martin-Menard said, calls for the government to issue a pre-pandemic alert to health-care facilities when a new virus is confirmed to be spreading from animals to humans; that fact was known by Jan. 6, 2020, for COVID-19, but the province didn't issue the alert, he said. The government didn't begin officially preparing for the pandemic's arrival until late February -- two days before the first cases were detected in the province. As well, the plan calls for Quebec to implement infection prevent and control measures, and identify the most vulnerable residents. Quebec's initial directives to the health-care system made no reference to long-term care centres and vulnerable people, Martin-Menard said. There was no specific plan issued to the health system about protecting long-term care centres until the end of March, he said. That delay caused Quebec to miss its window to prepare, leading to disastrous consequences, Martin-Menard argued. "Once again, here we see that was set out in the plan was not implemented," he told the court. Instead of launching the plan, he alleged, the government improvised, moving patients from hospitals to long-term care centres in an effort to free hospital beds. But those long-term care centres weren't prepared for the additional patients and couldn't properly care for residents after the government banned visits from family caregivers, Martin-Menard said. In one case, he said, a woman who depended on visits from her daughter to help her eat died shortly after those visits were banned. The government limited the ability of long-term care patients to go to hospitals if they had COVID-19, but the province didn't consider whether long-term care centres had the capacity to treat those patients, he said. "All of this had very significant consequences, not only for the people who got COVID-19, but also for the people who were severely affected by the deprivation of care that they had as a result," Martin-Menard told reporters. Jean-Pierre Daubois, the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, said his mother suffered from a lack of care. Anna José Maquet, 94, died at the Ste-Dorothée long-term care centre, in Laval, Que., in April 2020. While Maquet had an age-related eye disorder and required help to move around, she was otherwise healthy, he said. Daubois said his mother choked while drinking water and within three hours was put on a respiratory distress protocol, which he said led to her death. According to the lawsuit, at the time of Maquet's death, she was under the care of a nursing candidate who was not yet licensed and who allegedly provided treatments she was not qualified to administer. "We want the Quebec government to be held accountable for the non-preparation," Daubois told reporters at the Montreal courthouse. "There was gross incompetence on their part, we want this to change." Martin-Menard said the class action could include more than 10,000 people. The compensation being sought will depend on how many members are identified, he said, adding that it could be hundreds of millions of dollars. Quebec government lawyers declined to comment on the case on September 18, 2023. Lawyers for Quebec's health-care establishments are scheduled to make arguments on September 14, 2023, and lawyers for the province's attorney general are to appear on September 15, 2023. [GN] QUINOA CORPORATION: Heyning Sues Over Mislabeled Pasta Product -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER HEYNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUINOA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04755-TSH (N.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2023) seeks to redress the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of the Ancient Harvest brand goods which make protein claims on the front of the product packages while omitting a statement of the corrected amount of protein from the Nutrition Facts Panel. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently claims on the front of their Ancient Harvest Plant-Based Protein Pasta Red Lentil Rotini product packages that the product provides a specified amount of protein, such as "25G PROTEIN on its Red Lentil Rotini. This protein claims on the front of the package while omitting the statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving expressed as a percent DV in the NFP, is likely to mislead reasonable consumers. Consumers reasonably expect that the Defendant's products will actually provide nutritionally the full amount of protein per serving claimed on the front of the package. But the Defendant's products do not do so and instead contain low protein quality proteins. Had Defendant included a statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving in the NFP, as they were required to do under the law, it would have revealed that the product contains low quality proteins and provides nutritionally as little as 50 percent of their total protein quantity. That information was material to reasonable consumers. The Defendant's unlawful and misleading protein claims caused the Plaintiff and members of the class to pay a price premium for the Ancient Harvest products, says the suit. QUINOA CORPORATION provides packaged food products. The Company offers pasta, grains, cereals, soybeans, lentils, and cheese. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com RAD POWER: Faces Mason Class Suit Over E-Bikes' Defective Design ---------------------------------------------------------------- GARY E. MASON v. RAD POWER BIKES, INC. and RAD POWER BIKES, LLC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01446 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 15, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Rad e-bike purchasers, alleging that Rad manufactures defective e-bikes that put riders and passengers, including children, at serious risk of high-speed crashes and lethal injury. According to the complaint, the combination of Rad e-bikes' heavy weight, bike fork design with quick release skewers, and quick release parts results in a hazardous and patently unsafe design on all Rad e-bikes. Rad e-bikes' defective design causes the front wheel to disengage from the bike frame while operating, resulting in increased instability or wobbling and even complete dismantling of the bike. This defective design causes bike operators, like Mr. Mason, to be sent flying over the handlebars or otherwise crash while biking at high speeds, the Plaintiff contends. These defective e-bikes can even lead to death because their wheels and brakes can malfunction when braking occurs. Despite knowing that the use of disc brakes in conjunction with quick-release skewers can cause dangerous and unsafe braking, the Defendants continue to manufacture, sell, and market their Defective e-bikes as safe, family-friendly transportation, the suit alleges. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action to redress the Defendants' misconduct. The Plaintiff further seeks relief on behalf of himself and all other Rad e-bike purchasers, including repair, replacement, and/or refund; extended warranty; injunctive relief resolving (and appropriate curative notice regarding) the existence and cause of the Defective e-bikes; reimbursement of all expenses associated with the repair or replacement of the e-bikes and damage caused by the Rad e-bikes; and reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses. Mr. Mason purchased the RadRunner Electric Utility Bike in March of 2021. On May 31, 2022, Mr. Mason was riding his RadRunner e-bike in Bethesda, Maryland to the grocery store. While riding his e-bike, Mr. Mason braked to avoid a turning car. Upon braking, Mr. Mason was thrown over the handlebars - and saw the front wheel flying through the air. Mr. Mason landed on his back, resulting in five broken ribs and a broken clavicle. Mr. Mason spent two nights in the trauma ward at Johns Hopkins Medicine. As a result of his severe injuries, Mr. Mason spent six weeks in rehabilitation and physical therapy. Rad manufacturers e-bikes, which are motor-powered bicycles that allow both rider and motor to assist propulsion and can reach speeds of 20 miles per hour.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Megan E. Shannon, Esq. Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com megan@feganscott.com melissa@feganscott.com RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Settles Commission Class Action for $55 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sheridan Wall, writing for TheRealDeal, reports that RE/MAX will cough up an eight-figure sum to extricate itself from two class-action lawsuits over agent commission payments. The company agreed on Sept. 15 to pay $55 million to settle the claims filed in Kansas City and Chicago, according to a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If approved by the judges in each case, the settlement would remove RE/MAX from the landmark lawsuits without holding the company responsible for claims outlined in them. The lawsuits, known as Sitzer/Burnett and Christopher Moehrl, allege the brokerages violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by colluding with the National Association of Realtors to inflate commissions paid by home sellers. The agreement also commits RE/MAX to making "certain changes to its business practices," according to the SEC document filed on Sept. 18. Among the changes is to no longer require sellers to pay buyer's agents' commission, Michael Ketchmark, one of the lead attorneys in the Sitzer/Burnett told Inman. A spokesperson for the company denied the allegations in the lawsuits and noted that the agreement was reached "after carefully considering the significant risks and costs associated with continued litigation," according to an emailed statement. "The settlement paves the way for a clear path forward for the RE/MAX brand, its franchisees and its agents, removing the uncertainty of ongoing litigation related to these cases," the spokesperson wrote. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in each case did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Other brokerages named as defendants include Keller Williams, Anywhere Real Estate and HomeServices of America, along with the National Association of Realtors. Anywhere, the parent company of Corcoran, Coldwell Banker, Century21 and Sotheby's International Realty, agreed this month to pay $83.5 million to settle the lawsuits. The firm also agreed to stop mandating sellers pay commissions for the buyers' agents. Last month, attorneys for NAR filed four requests with the U.S. District Court in Western Missouri -- the jurisdiction of the Sitzer/Burnett case -- to suppress evidence associated with discrimination and government investigations. A three-week jury trial for the Sitzer/Burnett case, the smaller of the two actions, is scheduled to start Oct. 16. A federal appeals court denied a May request from the defendants in the Moehrl case to overturn its class certification. The judge has not yet set a trial date. The latest development in the antitrust lawsuits come as NAR is facing a reckoning over misconduct among its leadership and various policies. Kenny Parcell resigned as president of the trade group in August following an investigation by the New York Times that involved accusations of sexual harassment from three women. The U.S. Court of Appeals also ruled last month to bring back a lawsuit related to pocket listings. The lawsuit claims the trade group and two other associations violated antitrust laws by mandating listing brokers submit a property to their MLS within one day of marketing a home. Earlier this summer, the Department of Justice took steps to relaunch its probe into NAR. The agency filed an appeal brief in June arguing against a January court decision that barred it from reviving its investigation into the trade group's policies on pocket listings and broker commissions. [GN] RELIANT TERMITE: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Roberts Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reliant Termite & Pest Control, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00951-O (N.D. Tex., Sept. 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to include all required remuneration into the regular rate of pay to calculate overtime for any overtime pay it managed to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the payments erroneously excluded from the regular rate of pay include the commissions and the renewal fees. Per their respective employment agreement Defendant was required to pay the Pest Control Technicians an hourly rate, a commission on all sales and renewal fees. However, the Defendant did not pay any termite renewal inspection commissions, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. He was paid overtime for weeks in which he worked more than 40 hours. But, the commissions the Plaintiff received were not counted in computing his regular rate. For example, for the pay period ending October 7, 2021, the Plaintiff was paid for 42.82 hours. 40 hours at the straight time rate of $13.50 per hour, 2.82 overtime hours at the overtime rate of $18.00 per hour and commissions of $169.07. The overtime rate was incorrect because it did not include the commissions in the regular rate to determine the overtime rate. The Defendant also allegedly failed to accurately track hours worked as one hour for lunch was automatically deducted when in fact the Pest Control Technicians were not able to take an uninterrupted lunch break and in fact worked during their alleged lunch break, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those similarly situated pursuant to the FLSA ("Collective Members"). The Collective Members consist of all persons who are or have been employed by Defendant as Pest Control Technicians at any time during the three-year period preceding the date of the filing of this Complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Pest Control Technician from March 2020 to June 2023. The Defendant is a pest control company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com ROSEBOX LLC: Fails to Pay Florists' OT Wages, Marquez Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ LILY ANDREINA SOSA MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROSEBOX LLC d/b/a ROSE BOX NYC, DANA DADUSH and INBAL BAR HORNIK, as individuals, Case No. 1:23-cv-08171 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 61 hours or more hours each week. But the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half (1.5) for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week. Furthermore, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff on a bi-weekly basis, failing to timely pay the Plaintiff for her first week of wages and thus violated the frequency of pay requirements of NYLL section 191, the lawsuit claims. Due to the Defendants' late payments, the Plaintiff experienced a myriad of financial difficulties specifically in covering her regular expenses such as bills, food, and other expenses. As a result of these violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate, the lawsuit says. Ms. Marquez was employed as a florist and customer service worker while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from October 2021 until August 2022. Rose Box offers long-lasting rose arrangements.[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 ROTOCO LLC: Faces Trcka Wage-and-Hour Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA TRCKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROTOCO, LLC and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2304897 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a nonexempt employee from April through August 2023. RotoCo, LLC is a family-owned business and a franchise partner of Roto-Rooter Plumbing and Drain Service based in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Mankin, Esq. Peter J. Carlson, Esq. LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP 5198 Arlington Avenue, PMB 513 Riverside, CA 92504 Telephone: (951) 320-1444 Facsimile: (951) 320-1445 E-mail: brian@lmlfirm.com peter@lmlfirm.com SALESFORCE INC: Conceals True Cost of Subscription, Roy Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DR. LISBETH W. ROY, an individual, on behalf of herself and the general public v. SALESFORCE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:23-cv-04764 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's subscription contract does not disclose that the Subscription requires payment of significant Implementation Costs for the subscription to hold any value to the consumer. According to the complaint, Dr. Roy discovered that the contract amount she had agreed to pay was not the "true cost" of the Salesforce software because, in order to use the software at all, everyone who contracts with Salesforce is required to spend additional sums to "implement" the software. The true cost of the Salesforce Subscription service is therefore the Implementation Cost plus the Subscription cost. Dr. Roy alleges that by the time she discovered the True Cost of the Expected Benefits, she had already signed the MSA with its unconscionable Termination Penalty, though she would not have signed the MSA if she had been aware of the True Costs. On December 23, 2019, Dr. Roy entered into the MSA with Salesforce. He was surprised to learn that it would cost $12,000 in hidden Implementation Costs to receive any of the Expected Benefits of the MSA. On May 24, 2020, Dr. Roy notified Salesforce that she wanted to cancel her Salesforce subscription, citing the legal justification: "frustration of purpose." Salesforce refused to cancel the Plaintiff's Subscription despite the fact that the Plaintiff no longer had any use for the Subscription services due to her inability to provide in-persona medical services, much less grow her business, as a result of the unforeseeable COVID-19 pandemic, the lawsuit claims. Dr. Roy has been allegedly damaged in an amount equal to the balance due on her MSA agreement from her cancellation in May 2020, to the termination of the contract in December 2022; and to the entirety of the MSA fees she paid to Salesforce due to Defendants' concealment of the Implementation Costs, disclosure of which would have compelled the Plaintiff not to enter into the MSA. Dr. Roy hereby files this Complaint on behalf of herself and the general public alleging that the MSA's Termination Penalty and its related clauses are void and unenforceable under California Civil Code section 1671; that the MSA is unconscionable under Civil Code Section 1670.5; that Plaintiff's MSA's purpose was frustrated and the MSA thus terminated pursuant to California Civil Code section 1511; and that the MSA and Defendants' practices are unlawful and/or unfair under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.. The Plaintiff is asking the Court, on behalf of herself and the public at large, to protect the Plaintiff and other unsuspecting consumers from Salesforce's unfair business practices, by reviewing and "policing" the Salesforce MSA to ensure that it complies with applicable California law and policy. Dr. Roy is an individual, with medical practice offices located at 2595 NW Boulevard, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33431. Salesforce is a publicly-traded mega-cap corporation that primarily offers cloud technology-based SaaS for "customer relationship management."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Stuart-alban, Esq. Juan Pablo Alban, Esq. STUART ALBAN LAW, PC 87 Raymond Avenue, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (323) 208-4596 E-mail: courtney@stuartalbanlaw.com jp@stuartalbanlaw.com SANZ CONSTRUCTION: Marcatoma Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO MARCATOMA, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated v. SANZ CONSTRUCTION, INC., and NAUMAN SHAH, Individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-20455 (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2023) seeks to recover the overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Beginning July, 2022, and continuing until July, 2023, the Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation. The Plaintiff routinely worked 45-50 hours per workweek. But the Defendants paid the Plaintiff straight time for overtime hours, the lawsuit alleges. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' violations of the FLSA. Mr. Marcatoma was employed by the Defendants from July, 2022, until July, 2023 as a carpenter performing duties in furtherance of the Defendants' construction business. Sanz is a home improvement contractor business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-030 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com SECURITY CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Ortiz Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH ORTIZ, an individual v. SECURITY CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL INC., a California Corporation; MARK JAMES ASSAD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22334 (Cal. Super., Sept. 15, 2023) is a class action alleging that the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, missed, short, late, and/or interrupted meal periods and/or rest breaks, in violation of the California law. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly misclassified their employees as independent contractors in violation of Labor 27 Code 226.8, thereby depriving them of numerous labor code protections. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to keep track of the Plaintiff's and other employees' actual hours worked. Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. This is in violation of Section 7 of Wage Order 2, 4, 17 and other wage orders. The Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff and other employees timely meal and rest breaks, the suit adds. The Plaintiff remains unpaid for his final two weeks of employment. The Defendants failed to provide employees' full final pay upon separation, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks payment of overtime wages and other compensation owed to him, plus all benefits required pursuant to the laws of the State of California, including Employment Laws and Regulations, based on the sums withheld from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also seeks recovery of penalties, attorney's fees, and costs as provided by statute. Mr. Ortiz is a resident of the County of Los Angeles and citizen of the State of California. Security Consultants is a security services business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 E-mail: contact@slawla.com SENSIO INC: Gibson-Roberts Sues Over Defective Pressure Cookers --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDY GIBSON-ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENSIO, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07926 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to remedy violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act in connection with the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling and warranting of the Recalled Sensio Pressure Cookers. According to the complaint, these Recalled Pressure Cookers have a dangerously defective lid-locking assembly. The assembly allows a Pressure Cooker's lid to open while the cooker's contents are still under pressure, causing the super-heated contents to erupt from the cooker and to scald consumers with second- and third-degree burns. On August 10, 2023, Sensio recalled nearly 860,000 of the Recalled Pressure Cookers. Assuming that the Recall was effective and offered a true resolution, Plaintiff is still burdened with a pressure cooker that has been devalued by Defendant's actions because a pressure cooker with a known, dangerous defect is worth much less than a pressure cooker with a properly working and safe locking mechanism, says the suit. Sensio Inc. is a manufacturer of kitchen appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Philip Furia, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com SOSA CONTRACTORS: Guerra Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT ----------------------------------------------------------- LESTER ESTUARDO JUAREZ GUERRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOSA CONTRACTORS LLC JOSUE D. SOSA MENDEZ LILIANA HERNANDEZ MELENDEZ PARADIGM CONTRACTORS LLC DESIGN SYSTEMS & SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01206 (E.D. Va., Sept. 7, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Payment of Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from May 2022 to September 28, 2022. His regular rate of pay was $25.00 per hour. During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff fabricated and/or installed exterior panels on a construction project. The Plaintiff regularly worked 8-10 hours per day Monday through Friday and 8-10 hours on some Saturdays and estimates that he worked between 42 and 55 hours per week. However, he never received an overtime premium for any hours he worked over 40 in a single work week while working on the project, says the suit. Sosa Contractors LLC is a construction company organized under the laws of the State of Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Road, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Zide Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NANCY ZIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOVOS COMPLIANCE, LLC and PACIFIC PREMIER BANK, Case No. 8:23-cv-01711-FLA-JDE (C.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members personal identifiable information and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. On May 31, 2023, the Defendants learned that one of their IT vendor's networks (Progress Software) had been penetrated by a cyberattack. In response, the Defendants launched an investigation and concluded₋₋on an undisclosed date₋₋that "unauthorized actors exploited the then-unknown MOVEit vulnerability to download a file containing some of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information." On August 25, 2023, the Defendant began sending the Notice of Data Breach letters to the Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the Notice of Data Breach, the compromised PII included individuals' full names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, Pacific Premier account numbers, and Social Security numbers. The Data Breach has caused the Plaintiff to suffer fear, anxiety, and stress, which has been compounded by the fact that the Defendants have still not fully informed her of key details about the Data Breach's occurrence, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff and Class Members have all sustained actual injuries and damages, including invasion of privacy; loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft risk; the loss of benefit of the bargain; diminution of value of their PII; invasion of privacy; and the continued risk to their PII, the lawsuit adds. Ms. Zide does not know how the Defendants obtained her PII and was not familiar with the Defendants prior to receiving the Notice Letter from the Defendant Sovos. Sovos is a "global company" that provides regulatory and compliance services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Facsimile: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Missing Fruit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that Starbucks (SBUX.O) was ordered by a federal judge on September 18, 2023 to face a lawsuit claiming that several of its Refresher fruit beverages lacked a key ingredient: fruit. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in Manhattan rejected Starbucks' request to dismiss nine of the 11 claims in the proposed class action, saying "a significant portion of reasonable consumers" would expect their drinks to contain fruit mentioned in their names. Consumers complained that Starbucks' Mango Dragonfruit, Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade, Pineapple Passionfruit, Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade, Strawberry Açai and Strawberry Açai Lemonade Refreshers contained none of the advertised mango, passion fruit or açai. The plaintiffs Joan Kominis, of Astoria, New York, and Jason McAllister, of Fairfield, California, said the main ingredients were water, grape juice concentrate and sugar, and that Starbucks' misleading names caused them to be overcharged. They said this violated their states' consumer protection laws. In seeking a dismissal, Seattle-based Starbucks said the product names described the drinks' flavors as opposed to their ingredients, and its menu boards accurately advertised those flavors. It also said no reasonable consumers would have been confused, and its baristas could have "sufficiently dispelled" any confusion if consumers had questions. But the judge said that unlike the term "vanilla," the subject of many lawsuits, "nothing before the court indicates that 'mango,' 'passionfruit,' and 'acai' are terms that typically are understood to represent a flavor without also representing that ingredient." Cronan also said confusion might be understandable because other Starbucks products contain ingredients in their names - for example, Ice Matcha Tea Latte contains matcha and Honey Citrus Mint Tea contains honey and mint. The judge dismissed a fraud claim, finding no proof Starbucks intended to defraud consumers, and an unjust enrichment claim. Starbucks in a statement called the allegations in the lawsuit "inaccurate and without merit," and said it looked forward to defending itself. The lawsuit began in August 2022, and alleged at least $5 million in damages. Robert Abiri, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said he was pleased with the decision and looked forward to representing the proposed class. The case is Kominis et al v Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-06673. [GN] STREAMLINE BUILDERS: Faces Aldana Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BAGNER EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ ALDANA, DAVID RODRIGUEZ ALDANA, JOSE LUIS DIAZ VIDAL, JOSE RODRIGUEZ ALDANA, JUAN DUBON DELA ROSA, NERY GONZALEZ CRUZ, and SANTIAGO GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STREAMLINE BUILDERS CORP. d/b/a JR TREE CARE, and ERIKA SALTZMAN, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06668 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to furnish a written wage notice. Plaintiff Bagner Eduardo Rodriguez Aldana also asserts claims under the New York State Executive Law for unlawful discriminatory practice due to his actual and/or perceived work-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the Defendants as tree climbers and cutters while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. Streamline Builders Corp. provides tree services to the Queens, New York area including pruning, trimming, tree removal for both residential and commercial.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 TANDEM DIABETES: Faces Lowe Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ CAREY LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TANDEM DIABETES CARE, INC., JOHN F. SHERIDAN, BRIAN B. HANSEN, and LEIGH A. VOSSELLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01657-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2023) is a federa1 securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tandem securities between August 3, 2022 and November 2, 2022 inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Tandem's projected revenue and sales for the year ending 2022. On August 2, 2022, Tandem estimated annual sales "to be in the range of $835 million to $845 million, which represents an annual growth of 19 percent to 20 percent compared to 2021." The Defendants provided these statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. This caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Tandem's securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit. The truth emerged on November 2, 2022 when Tandem, in an investment call and Form 8-K filing, revised its 2022 forecast downward to $800 to $805 million. Reasons stated for the scale back included increased competition in the diabetes care sector, complications due to the COVID pandemic, and macroeconomic factors such as inflation. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Tandem's revised guidance. The price of Tandem's common stock declined dramatically. On November 2, 2022, Tandem closed at $51.34; however, on November 3, 2022 Tandem closed at $35.72 -- a one-day decline of 30.4%, the suit alleges. Tandem Diabetes Care is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets a variety of consumer technologies and software for at-home diabetes care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7290 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com THERMO FISHER: Dimou Sues Over Breach Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA ------------------------------------------------------------------ KONSTANTINA DIMOU, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan, v. THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC.; THE MANAGEMENT PENSION COMMITTEE OF THE THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01732-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2023) sues the Defendants for breach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's fiduciary duties, violation of ERISA's anti-inurement provision, and engaging in self-dealing and transactions prohibited by ERISA. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have continually breached this duty of loyalty with respect to their control and management of the Plan's assets over the past 6 years by choosing to utilize forfeited funds in the Plan exclusively for the benefit of the Company rather than solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries. Instead of acting solely in the interest of Plan participants by utilizing forfeited funds in the Plan to reduce or eliminate the administrative expenses charged to their individual accounts, the Defendants chose to use these Plan assets for the exclusive purpose of reducing its own future contributions to the Plan, thereby saving the Company millions of dollars each year at the expense of the Plan which received decreased Company contributions and its participants and beneficiaries who were forced to incur avoidable expense deductions to their individual accounts, the suit alleges. In 2022, the Company contributions to the Plan were reduced by $5,934,000 as a result of the Defendants' reallocation of forfeited nonvested account balances for the Company's own benefit, leaving a balance of $3,773,000 in the forfeiture account, none of which was used to pay Plan expenses. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' fiduciary breaches described, the Plan suffered injury and loss for which they are personally liable and are subject to appropriate equitable relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1109, including the disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits to the Defendants resulting from the breach of their duty of loyalty. Each Defendant knowingly participated in the breach of the other Defendants, knowing that such acts were a breach, enabled other Defendants to commit a breach by failing to lawfully discharge its own fiduciary duties, knew of the breach by the other Defendants and failed to make any reasonable effort under the circumstances to remedy the breach. Thus, each Defendant is liable for the losses caused by the breach of its co-fiduciary under 29 U.S.C. Section 1105(a). The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: All participants and beneficiaries of the Thermo Fisher Plan from September 19, 2017 through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants and members of the Committee of the Thermo Fisher Plan. The Plaintiff was previously employed by Thermo Fisher in Carlsbad, California, and has been a participant of the Plan since 2021. Thermo Fisher is a publicly traded New York Stock Exchange company that supplies analytical instruments, life sciences solutions, specialty diagnostics, laboratory, pharmaceutical and biotechnology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Hayes, Esq. Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq. HAYES PAWLENKO LLP 1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (626) 808-4357 E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com TMC HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Williams Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE WILLIAMS, BRAD WILLIAMS, SEAN DAUGHTERY, and MARGARET MILFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TMC HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00434-SHR (D. Ariz., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, negligence, invasion of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's secret and unauthorized disclosure of its patients' sensitive personal health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) to third parties through various online tracking technologies. Unbeknownst to its patients and prospective patients visiting the Defendant's website, www.tmcaz.com, TMC Health procures third-party technology companies to secretly intercept and record the visitors' activities on the website in real-time, including specific searches for sensitive health-related topics. The Defendant's unauthorized disclosure constituted a serious breach of its duties and obligations to maintain the security and privacy of its patients' and prospective patients' sensitive information, says the suit. TMC Health is a healthcare provider, with its principal place of business in Tucson, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER CRUZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22656 (Cal. Super., Sept. 19, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to pay wages, including minimum and overtime wages; failing to provide timely meal breaks and rest breaks; failing to pay wages due upon termination; failing to provide safe working conditions; failing to provide place of employment that is safe and healthful; failing to reimburse for required business expenses; and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees are required to walk through the large facility and to their own work area where they are finally permitted to clock in, which is up to a 15-minute walk each way from the security entrance. The Plaintiff and aggrieved employees were also required to go through security to enter and walk to their own department's time clock when returning from unpaid lunch periods which further contributed to unpaid hours worked. The Plaintiff and aggrieved employees received additional pay including nondiscretionary semi-annual bonuses but Defendant failed to include the additional pay in the "regular rate" of pay for purposes of calculating overtime, the Plaintiff claims. Additionally, the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees working in positions that observed quality issues were required to use their personal phones to take photos of the quality issues. The Defendant's failure to fully reimburse for any of these expenses renders the Defendant liable for PAGA penalties for each pay period wherein a violation occurred, the suit asserts. The Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the Cal. Labor Code, including the Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. Mr. Cruz worked for the Defendant on an hourly, non-exempt basis from May 2006 to March 2023. Toyota retails and sells new and used automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com UKG INC: KPC Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set October 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU WERE IMPACTED BY THE DECEMBER 2021 CYBERATTACK ON THE KRONOS PRIVATE CLOUD ("KPC"), YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT A class action settlement has been proposed in a case against UKG Inc. (with Kronos Incorporated, "UKG") relating to a ransomware attack on the Kronos Private Cloud ("KPC") in December of 2021 (the "December 2021 KPC Cyberattack"). If you are a Settlement Class Member, there may be benefits available to you from the proposed settlement. The easiest way to submit a claim under the Settlement is by using the Claim Form on this Website -- https://www.kronosprivatecloudsettlement.com/ If you are unsure of whether you are eligible for benefits, visit the Settlement Website or call 1-833-747-6267. Both sides agreed to a settlement after a lengthy mediation process to avoid the costs and uncertainty of a trial, while more quickly providing benefits to Settlement Class Members. UKG denies any wrongdoing and no judgment or determination of wrongdoing has been made. In addition to other benefits, as part of the proposed settlement, UKG has agreed to establish a "Settlement Fund" of five million five hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000) which may be supplemented by up to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) should Approved Claims exhaust the initial funding (after the deduction of Settlement Administrator Expenses, Fee Award, Litigation Costs, and Service Awards). Depending on whether you are a Nationwide Class Member, Exfiltration Subclass Member or a California Subclass Member, settlement relief includes: Nationwide Class: All natural U.S. persons who are current or former employees or contractors, including their dependents, of UKG customers, whose data was stored in the KPC at the time of the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack and who were impacted by the interruption of KPC applications resulting from the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack. Each Nationwide Class Member is eligible to receive compensation for Ordinary Losses (as defined below); Exfiltration Subclass: All members of the Nationwide Class who were sent notice that their personal data was exfiltrated during the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack and were offered credit monitoring services for themselves or on behalf of their dependents. Each Exfiltration Subclass Member is eligible to receive a payment of $100 plus compensation for Ordinary Losses (as defined below) and Extraordinary Losses (as defined below); California Subclass: All members of the Nationwide Class who are also California residents at the time of the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack. Each California Subclass Member is eligible to receive an additional payment of $30 plus compensation for Ordinary Losses (as defined below) and Extraordinary Losses (if also an Exfiltration Subclass Member and as defined below). Compensation for Ordinary Losses: UKG will provide compensation for unreimbursed personal losses, not including lost wages, up to a total of $1,000 per person, to Settlement Class Members upon submission of an Approved Claim and supporting documentation (if necessary) of the following categories of claimed losses: Compensation for Ordinary Losses: UKG will provide compensation for unreimbursed personal losses, not including lost wages, up to a total of $1,000 per person, to Settlement Class Members upon submission of an Approved Claim and supporting documentation (if necessary) of the following categories of claimed losses: Out-of-pocket expenses: UKG will provide compensation for long distance phone charges, cell phone charges (only if charged by the minute), data charges (only if charged based on the amount of data used), bank fees (documented), credit monitoring (documented), or late fees (documented), all of which must be more likely than not caused by and fairly traceable to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack and subsequent interruption of applications hosted in the KPC, must not have been previously reimbursed by a third party, and are supported by documentation if necessary and sworn attestation that substantiated the full extent of the amount claimed. Lost time: Settlement Class and Subclass Members may submit claims for up to four hours of lost personal time that has not been previously reimbursed by a third party, at $25/hour, with an attestation that they spent the claimed time responding to issues raised by the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack, including time spent responding to interruption of applications hosted in the KPC. Compensation for Extraordinary Losses: UKG will provide compensation, up to a total of $7,500 per person, to Settlement Class Members in the Exfiltration Subclass, upon submission of an Approved Claim and supporting documentation for proven personal monetary loss associated with fraud or identity theft if: -- The loss is an actual, documented, and unreimbursed monetary loss; -- The loss was more likely than not caused by and fairly traceable to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack; -- The loss is not already covered by the Compensation for Ordinary Losses outlined above; and, -- The Settlement Class Member made reasonable efforts to avoid, or seek reimbursement for, the loss, including but not limited to exhaustion of all available credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance. UKG Security-Hardening Measures: UKG has represented that it has taken and will continue to take measures to harden the security of KPC environment impacted by the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack. Those measures include, for various periods of time depending on the measure: expanding the scanning and monitoring program using insights from its investigation; supplementing UKG's Security Operations Center monitoring with additional third-party managed service monitoring; deploying additional malware scanning tools across all products and UKG's corporate IT environment; and expanding cold storage backups. The estimated cost of such measures is in excess of $1,500,000. This Settlement expressly excludes any statutory, contractual, or common law claims for wages brought against UKG related to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack. UKG denies any legal obligation for wage claims of any kind related to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack. File a claim as a Nationwide, Exfiltration and/or California Class Member Deadline: October 3, 2023 You must submit a claim in order to receive reimbursement for Ordinary (out-of-pocket expenses and lost time) and/or Extraordinary Losses and to receive any additional cash payments should you be a Nationwide Class Member, Exfiltration Subclass Member or California Subclass Member. Exclude yourself from the Settlement Deadline: September 18, 2023 You can exclude yourself from the Settlement by informing the Settlement Administrator that you want to "opt-out" of the Settlement. If the Settlement becomes final, this is the only option that allows you to retain your rights to separately sue UKG for claims related to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). If you opt-out, you may not make a claim for benefits under the Settlement. Deadline: September 18, 2023 Object or comment on the Settlement Deadline: September 18, 2023 You may object to the Settlement by writing to explain to the Court why you don't think the Settlement should be approved. If you object, you will remain a Settlement Class Member, and if the Settlement is approved, you will be eligible for the benefits of the Settlement and give up your right to sue UKG on certain claims described in the Settlement Agreement, which is available at: Do nothing If you do nothing, you will not be entitled to any benefits provided under the Settlement. If the Settlement becomes final, you will give up your right to sue UKG separately for claims relating to the December 2021 KPC Cyberattack (excluding claims for the recovery of wages) or to continue to pursue any such claims you have already filed. This website is authorized by the Court, supervised by counsel and controlled by Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, the Settlement Administrator approved by the Court. This is the only authorized website for this case. Call 1-833-747-6267 MailKroll Settlement Administration, LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 [GN] UNITEDLEX: Faces Class Action Over March Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that a Florida woman wants to initiate a class action against Overland Park-based UnitedLex over a data breach in March. A data breach in March compromised the personal information for an estimated 7,000 people. That has led to a lawsuit, now in federal court, against data and professional services company UnitedLex. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Suarez Alleges Failure to Secure Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBIN SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS CHAN MEDICAL SCHOOL, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12130 (D. Mass., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach between May 27, 2023, and May 28, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School is a public medical school in Worcester, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mgirardi@bursor.com USAA GENERAL: Tarkett Sues Over Unpaid Equity Surplus Amount ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH TARKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01724-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., September 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, declaratory relief, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from USAA's deceptive and unfair practice of failing to pay its insureds the amount owed after it declares its insureds' leased vehicles a total loss. In breach of its standardized insurance policy and in violation of the laws alleged herein, USAA does not provide the equity surplus amount to its insureds. Instead, USAA unlawfully sends the entire insurance payout, including the equity surplus amount, to the insureds' leasing companies even though the leasing companies have no right to the surplus under the insurance contract, or otherwise. As a result, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated insured persons and entities against USAA for its failure to honor its duties and obligations under its insurance policy, says the suit. USAA General Indemnity Company is an automobile insurance company based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com - and - Carree K. Nahama, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CARREE K. NAHAMA 530 B. Street, Suite 1550 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-1434 Facsimile: (619) 230-1181 E-mail: cnahama@cknlaw.com VIDEOTRON LTEE: Faces Class Suits in Quebec Over Unlawful Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bagnell of Bloomberg reports that Videotron, a major provider of telecommunications services in Quebec, is the target of two class-action lawsuits alleging the company overcharged its residential customers in that province. Both of the lawsuits have been authorized by the Superior Court of Quebec to proceed as class actions, meaning a huge number of Videotron customers could be awarded damages. None of the allegations have yet been tested in court, and Videotron has formally denied some of the allegations. SIM CARD CHARGES One case alleges that Videotron improperly charged some of its customers for SIM cards that those customers did not request. That lawsuit was authorized to proceed as a class action on Aug. 9. That case cites two examples of Videotron customers who purchased mobile phones from the company, and found they had also been charged $10 for a SIM card they did not need or request. REBATES AND INTEREST CHARGES Another lawsuit accuses Videotron of overcharging its customers in two ways. It was authorized as a class action on Feb. 3. Lawyers behind this lawsuit say it applies to Quebec customers of all of Videotron's services between Oct. 20, 2018 and Feb. 3 of this year. The services include internet, television, video streaming, wireless and wireline phone service. This lawsuit is focused on rebates and interest charges. It alleges that Videotron did not refund some customers of its pre-paid services when those customers cancelled their subscriptions. If customers were owed less than $5 for services that Videotron would no longer provide, the suit alleges that Videotron did not issue a refund. Refunds were issued for amounts owing that were greater than $5. Separately, the lawsuit alleges that Videotron charged a full month of interest on overdue balances, regardless of how many days late a customer was in paying off their monthly bill. Moreover, it says Videotron's customer contracts claim to charge interest on overdue amounts on a daily basis, rather than monthly. WHAT COMES NEXT Maxime Oullette, a lawyer behind the rebates and interest charges lawsuit, told BNN Bloomberg that his firm expects to soon receive customer and billing data from Videotron - and has hired accounting firm PwC Canada to analyze the numbers. When that is complete, Oullette said he and his colleagues will be able to calculate how much money eligible Videotron customers would be owed if the case succeeds in court. One important calculation to arrive at, Ouellette said, is how many days an average Videotron customer was overcharged on interest fees. "We believe it was at least 10 to 15 days," he said. Oullette is with the firm Garnier Ouellette Avocats in Quebec City. David Bourgoin of BGA Inc. Avocat in Quebec City, another lawyer involved in this lawsuit, said his firm has received over a thousand emails and phone calls from people who believe they may be eligible for damages from Videotron. Meanwhile, the law firm involved in the SIM card lawsuit, Lambert Avocats of Montreal, told BNN Bloomberg that the court's authorization of its proceeding as a class action "marks a significant victory for consumers in the fight against inertia selling and hidden fees." The next step in that case is the publication of a court-approved notice of class action, in which the public is formally notified of the class action. A notice of class action has already been issued in the rebates and interest charges lawsuit. At the end of 2022, Quebecor Inc. - which owns Videotron - said Videotron had 6.3 million "revenue generating units," an industry phrase for subscriptions. Quebec is by far Videotron's largest geographic market. That number has since grown to 7.4 million RGUs with Quebecor's purchase this year of the Freedom Mobile wireless business, but those new customers would not be included in either of the class actions. Videotron representatives would not comment on either lawsuit when contacted by BNN Bloomberg. "We do not comment (on) ongoing procedures," the company said in an email. However, the notice of class action in the rebates and interest charges lawsuit says Videotron denies the allegations and "disputes the basis of the class action." [GN] WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Deceptive Hydrogen Peroxide ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Korris of Madison-St. Clair Record reports that U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn dismissed a class action complaint that labels on Walmart's 3% hydrogen peroxide deceived shopper April Wright of Chester. In an order, McGlynn rejected her claim that the words "for treatment of minor cuts and abrasions" meant the product would shorten the time of healing. "Wright's leap from the treatment of minor cuts and scrapes to a shortened healing time was wholly unsupported," he wrote. He entered the order with prejudice rather than grant leave for her counsel Spencer Sheehan to amend as judges generally do on a first motion to dismiss. Other judges have dismissed Sheehan's complaints with prejudice on a first motion, according to an order District Judge David Dugan entered on Aug. 14. He dismissed a complaint that Gillette Pure shaving product contains impurities. He granted leave to amend but echoed judges who didn't grant it. Sheehan voluntarily dismissed the complaint on Aug. 31. He has filed 29 class action complaints over labels and ingredients in the Southern Illinois district since May 2021. In the Walmart action, plaintiff Wright alleged consumer fraud and breach of warranty. She proposed to certify an Illinois class and a class for 12 other states. McGlynn found federal law precluded claims under Illinois law. He found the Food and Drug Administration posted an order in May finding hydrogen peroxide generally recognized as safe and effective. He found Illinois law can't impose additional requirements. He found the back panel specified that the solution should be used in first aid to help prevent the risk of infection in minor cuts, scrapes, and burns. "Clearly, Walmart has complied with the federal standards," he wrote. He stated even if federal law didn't preempt her claim, she still failed to state a consumer fraud claim on which he could grant relief. He found a court may dismiss a claim under Illinois consumer law if a statement wasn't misleading as a matter of law. "Treatment is subject to a multitude of definitions and plaintiff has not plausibly shown that the statement was deceptive," he wrote. He dismissed the warranty claim because Wright failed to make a demand on Walmart prior to suing and failed to provide notice to Walmart regarding any defect. Sheehan practices in Great Neck, New York. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Wins $800 Million Class Suit Over Liquidation ---------------------------------------------------------- Ben Miller of Bloomberg Law reports that Wells Fargo Securities LLC won't face a proposed class action that sought to recover up to $800 million in losses related to a 2018 portfolio liquidation, a U.S. judge said. The suit filed last year alleged that Wells Fargo breached its contract and fiduciary duties, acting negligently by demanding the liquidation of LJM Partnership Funds in response to temporary market volatility on Feb. 5, 2018. But a judge granted the company's motion to dismiss the claims, ruling that the investor plaintiffs failed to state a claim against Wells Fargo in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] WORLD OIL: Fails to Pay All OT Hours Worked, Mercado Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA MERCADO, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees v. WORLD OIL CORP.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22320 (Cal. Super., Sept. 15, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failed to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failed to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; failed to pay wages for accrued paid sick time at the regular rate of pay; failed to timely pay earned wages during employment; failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements; and failed to timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of employment. World Oil recycles, produces, and transports vital petroleum products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Courtney M. Miller, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com cmiller@lelawfirm.com WHT1@lelawfirm.com YARDI SYSTEMS: Duffy Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------ MCKENNA DUFFY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, CALIBRATE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, CLEAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, DALTON MANAGEMENT, INC., HNN ASSOCIATES, LLC, LEFEVER MATTSON, MANCO ABBOTT, INC., MORGUARD CORPORATION, PILLAR PROPERTIES, LLC, SUMMIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., CREEKWOOD PROPERTY CORPORATION, LEGACY PARTNERS, INC., and JONES LANG LASALLE INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01391 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 8, 2023) challenges an unlawful agreement among multifamily property managers, property owners, and property managers/owners, referred here as Operator Defendants, who colluded to coordinate pricing through the use of a centralized pricing mechanism, "RENTmaximizer," created by Defendant Yardi Systems. According to the complaint, Defendant Yardi and the Operator Defendants collectively used Yardi's "RENTmaximizer" software to coordinate on setting supracompetitive pricing on multifamily properties across the U.S. Yardi's RENTmaximizer is specifically, and publicly, marketed as a means to eliminate the discounting that would occur in a competitive market. Operator Defendants who agree to use RENTmaximizer understand that its purpose is to foil the operation of the competitive market, says the suit. The result of this scheme is that Operator Defendants outsource their once-independent pricing and supply decisions to a single decisionmaker, RENTmaximizer, and need not directly disclose their pricing strategies to each other in order to fix rent prices. Instead, Operator Defendants collectively adopt a coordinated pricing strategy implemented and enforced by Yardi's RENTmaximizer product, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Duffy rented multifamily residential units in properties managed by Operator Defendant Pillar Properties. Yardi Systems, Inc. is a property management software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Theodore Wojcik, Esq. Stephanie A. Verdoia, Esq. Xiaoyi Fan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com tedw@hbsslaw.com stephaniev@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Rio S. Pierce, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: rios@hbsslaw.com YOUR WIRELESS: Faces Claudio Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- JASON CLAUDIO, LEO GARRISON, and TYLER PERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YOUR WIRELESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-06711 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law The complaint is brought for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees required overtime, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to furnish accurate records of time, and failure to provide a proper wage statement. Plaintiff Garrison worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly-paid store manager from approximately April 2021 through March 2022. Your Wireless, Inc., does business as a Verizon Authorized Retailer, which operates over 130 Your Wireless stores across 16 U.S. states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA, P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 981 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com Z & S ENTERPRISES: Khan Seeks to Recover Clerks' Minimum & OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shahnawaz Khan, Selton Inacio Rodrigues, and all others similarly situated v. Z & S Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Fuel Express d/b/a Fuel Express #2; Shamsuddin Karim Ali; and Zohra Ali, Case No. 4:23-cv-03454 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 14, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class routinely worked in excess of 40 hours a week at Defendants' request, yet did not receive overtime wages as the FLSA requires, the suit asserts. From January 1, 2018, until September 20, 2021, the Defendants paid Mr. Khan at an hourly rate of $14.00. Thereafter, the Defendants paid Mr. Khan at the rate of $15.00 per hour. In order to evade the overtime provisions of the FLSA, the Defendants allegedly paid Mr. Khan's wages partly by check, and partly with cash. Accordingly, the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to evade the FLSA as pertaining to overtime. For decades, the Defendants have continued their pattern and practice of not paying overtime wages despite being sued for unpaid overtime by former employees in 2013 (Case No. 4:13-cv-02980), says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class comprised of current and former employees of all Gas Stations who were paid at a straight-time hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in any workweek during the class period. The Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class seek liquidated damages, and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law, assessed upon all damages, including attorney's fees and costs. Mr. Khan was employed by the Defendants as a clerk at their Gas Stations from September 2015, until July 15, 2022. Mr. Rodrigues was employed by the Defendant as a clerk at their Gas Stations from August 2019, until August 17, 2022. Z & S is a gasoline station and convenience store.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. 430 W. Bell Street Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 898-0982 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Committee Calls Out J&J's Ch. 11 Efforts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beasley Allen disclosed that Johnson & Johnson's discredited "Texas two-step" bankruptcy efforts came under fire from witnesses and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin. Senators from both parties pushed back against claims by J&J lawyer Erik Haas that by creating a shell company and then putting it into bankruptcy, the company was seeking a "fair and equitable" resolution to thousands of consumer lawsuits alleging that its asbestos-laced talc products cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. When Haas asserted to Senators that most plaintiffs lose at trial, Sen. Josh Hawley reminded Haas that a jury in Sen. Hawley's home state of Missouri found J&J liable and awarded $4.69 billion dollars in damages. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a $2.2 billion damage award for 22 plaintiffs. Sen. Hawley told Haas, "Your company panics and what you do is you then decide, 'Oh my gosh, we can't possibly do this. We can't pay these plaintiffs this kind of money.' So, you then create a separate company for the sole purpose of declaring bankruptcy and making sure that tens of thousands of other plaintiffs get scraps." See the entire exchange here. "Americans saw today that J&J and other huge corporations will try virtually anything to avoid responsibility when their products cause massive amounts of harm and suffering," says Leigh O'Dell of the Beasley Allen law firm and co-chair of the plaintiffs steering committee in the talc multidistrict litigation in New Jersey federal court. "Plaintiffs with legitimate claims are united and determined to continue to seek justice." As plaintiffs await their day in court, they continue to speak out against J&J's abusive practices. Their comments, recorded on video, can be found here. In his remarks, Sen. Durbin gave voice to his view that an increasing number of major corporations are abusing the bankruptcy process. He noted: -- The Texas two-step allows large profitable corporations to "shirk responsibility for the damage their products have caused." -- It denies individuals their day in court. -- It encourages forum-shopping by corporations to take advantage of more favorable locations. -- It forces victims who may be suffering fatal progressive diseases to endure protracted bankruptcy proceedings, robbing them of "precious time." An appellate court and a bankruptcy judge have twice dismissed J&J's bankruptcy maneuvers, finding that they were filed in bad faith. After a long delay caused by the bankruptcy litigation, attorneys for plaintiffs are gearing up to renew trying their cases before juries. "J&J continues to pursue the lie that a majority of victims want to settle their cases in bankruptcy and continues to attempt to bully claimants into accepting woefully inadequate compensation for their injuries and loss," says Andy Birchfield of the Beasley Allen law firm, which represents thousands of women and families in litigation against Johnson & Johnson. "After the hearing, it's obvious that legislators from both parties are serious about protecting the rights of individuals to have their claims tried where they belong, before judges who are qualified to consider individual matters of right and wrong, and before juries of their peers." ********* 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 ***