/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231003.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 3, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 198 Headlines APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Israel Over iCloud Service ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Collective Status BAYER CORPORATION: Parker Sues Over Ineffective Nasal Drugs BLUE CROSS: Steinhardt Suit Transferred to S.D. California BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Eddlemon Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief BRADY MARTZ: Koffler Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information BRAMALO PASTA: Zazzarino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BRITA PRODUCTS: Brown Suit Removed to C.D. California BUMBLE INC: Must Face BIPA Class Action Over Badoo App CABLECOM LLC: Pulu Suit Removed to N.D. California CALGARY, AB: Law Firms Mull E. Coli Class Actions Against Daycares CAMOFIRE LLC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York CARGILL MEAT: Villa Suit Seeks to Certify Production Worker Class CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Johnson Sues Over Debt Misrepresentation CEDAR REALTY: Court Junks Consolidated Shareholder Suit CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Vladasi Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHICAGO, IL: Police Stops Class Action Settlement Gets Final Okay CIGNA CORP: Faces 2nd Class Suit Over Claims Processing Software CLOSING PRO: Seplow Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania COMMSCOPE INC: Huffman Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach COMPUTER TASK: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Cegeka Sale COUNTYLINE AUTO: Paramo Files Suit in S.D. Florida CUSTOM COMMERCIAL: Gidney Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California DELTA MANAGEMENT: Caprio Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey DIASPORA CO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DOLLAR GENERAL: Hartline Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma DUCKETT FISHING: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York E P FLOORS CORP: Hatcher Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Glassman Seeks to Seal of Class Cert Exhibits EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Glassman Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes EMANATE HEALTH: Valdez Files Suit in C.D. California ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Moore Suit Removed to C.D. California EPIC GAMES: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Action for $245-Mil. FAHERTY BRAND: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California FEDEX GROUND: Suit Seeks to Certify Putative Class of Workers FIDELITY LIFE: Clerc Sues Over Failure to Implement Data Security FISKARS BRANDS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California FIVE9 INC: Duncan Suit Removed to N.D. Florida FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES: Bradds Suit Removed to C.D. California FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES: Colon Suit Removed to M.D. Florida FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES: Ramirez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida FOSTANI LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FRED MEYER STORES: Shields Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FREEPORT MINERALS: Stretz Files Suit in D. Arizona FRIEDLAND PROPERTIES: Cercado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FUJIFILM IRVINE: B.B. Files Suit in C.D. California GAT AIRLINE: Manu Suit Removed to E.D. California GEISINGER HEALTH: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania GENERAL MOTORS: Ortiz Sues Over Defective Bumper Shutter Grills GLEN RAVEN INC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOLDEN ARCUS: Hai Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages GRAF ACQUISITION: Berger Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty GREAT STAR: Courts OKs Certification of Proposed Class & Subclass GREAT STAR: Gair Wins Class Certification Bid GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York GULF SHORES, AL: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Impact Fees GUNTERSVILLE BREATHABLES: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Court Denies Ketayi Bid for Class Certification HERC RENTALS: Barry Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HOME BOX OFFICE: Ward Suit Removed to C.D. California HOUSING AUTHORITY: Bloch Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania HUB INTERNATIONAL: Ellis Sues Over Inadequately Protected Systems HYATT CORP: Ordono Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. IT WORKS MARKETING: Perez Suit Removed to N.D. California JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Erickson Bid for Class Certification OK'd JKS VENTURES: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNS HOPKINS: Ebneshahidi Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Audelo Files Suit in N.D. Florida JORDAN CRAIG: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JUUL LABS: Education Board Joins Vaping Ads Suit in Kansas JWS ACQUISITIONS: Moonsawmy Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia K9 BALLISTICS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KUSHKARDS LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York KYO-YA OHANA: Tan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LEARNING WHEEL: Bell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LILLY GIRL INC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LINGUA FRANCA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LITTLE BIRD: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Ocean S. Files Suit in C.D. California LUCY IN THE SKY: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MACY'S INC: Agrees to Settle CVC Sheets False Ads Suit for $10.5-M MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI MANUEL CARVALHO: Barzaga Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Overtime Work MARGARET MARY: Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana MARYFIELD CLEANERS: Jeon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MASTERBRAND CABINETS: Aguirre Suit Removed to C.D. California NORTH CENTRAL: Faces Class Suit Over COVID Remote Learning Shift OPENAI INC: Authors File Copyright Infringement Class Action PURFOODS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Mom's Meals Data Breach RAD POWER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Power Bikes RALPHS GROCERY: Class Cert. Deadline Continued to Jan. 19, 2024 RCDC RESEARCH: Extension to Conduct Class Cert. Discovery Sought RESURGENT CAPITAL: Averts Florida FDCPA Class Action REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Settles Mislabeled Recycling Bags Suit for $3-M RGV BOOT: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Mercedes S&P GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 13, 2025 SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Rithm Sale SOUTH32 LTD: Catholic Church Supports Coal Mine Dust Class Action SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Faces Class Action Over ERISA Violations SPOKEO INC: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 1 THOMAS VILSACK: Court Defers Ruling on Provisional Class Cert. Bid UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Officials Can't Evade Depositions in IPO Suit UNION SECURITY: Class Cert Responses in Lewis-Abdulhaadi Due Oct. 6 UNITED AIRLINES: Class Cert Discovery in Sambrano Due Nov. 10 UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Certification OK'd UNITED STATES: $59-Mil. Pembina Settlement Distribution Begins [*] Class Actions in Europe Continues to Skyrocket, CMS Reports ********* APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Israel Over iCloud Service ----------------------------------------------------------- Lital Dobrovitsky, writing for ynetnews.com, reports that a request for approval of a 25 million-shekel (about $6.6 million) class-action lawsuit was submitted in Israel against Apple Inc. The request, filed by lawyers Elad Danoch, David Michaev and Guy Davidovitch in the Jerusalem District Court, claims that Apple allegedly misleads consumers who purchase cloud storage packages for its iCloud service, and that the company is charging customers for the free service it is supposed to give to them anyway. The request claims that when Apple customers purchase its products, they receive cloud storage services of five gigabytes as a built-in and inseparable part of using the device. For example, according to the lawsuit, an Apple user who purchases a 50 gigabyte storage package actually only receives 45 gigabytes, because the other five gigabytes should be provided to them for free. The same argument is made for other cloud storage plans, such as in volumes of 200 gigabytes and 2 terabytes. The lawsuit also claims that Apple Global is in fact "misleading its customers by offering them to join a cloud storage service, but it provides them with a lower storage volume than it commits to, against the law." As part of the request, the court is asked to order Apple to correct its conduct, so that there is a match between the storage volume offered and the storage volume that is actually received. Apple has yet to respond. [GN] ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Collective Status --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WILHOIT, CHRISTINA HARGROVE, GIJI MISCHEL DENNARD, JULIE MAGERS, MEGAN SMALL, REGINA RUSGROVE, and LISA MARSHALL, individually, and on behalf of the class and all others similarly situated, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, Case No. 1:22-cv-01634-GBW (D. Del.), AstraZeneca moves to stay briefing on collective action certification until conclusion of AstraZeneca's pending Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaintand Motion to Strike Title VII Class Claims and ADEA Collective Action Claims. Alternatively, to the extent the Court denies the motion to stay, AstraZeneca requests that the Court set a deadline of October 23, 2023, for AstraZeneca to respond to the motion for conditional certification. AstraZeneca certifies that it has made a reasonable effort to resolve the issue presented in this Motion. Counsel for the parties, including Delaware counsel, met and conferred to discuss this Motion and the parties could not reach resolution on the motion to stay. The Plaintiffs consented to a deadline of October 23, 2023, for AstraZeneca to respond to the motion for conditional certification. AstraZeneca manufactures, fabricates, and processes drugs in pharmaceutical preparations. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LZDGVh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jody C. Barillare, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2201 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 574-3000 E-mail: jody.barillare@morganlewis.com BAYER CORPORATION: Parker Sues Over Ineffective Nasal Drugs ----------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Parker, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER CORPORATION, GSK CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, INC., RITE AID CORPORATION, and WALGREEN CO., Case No. 2:23-cv-03663 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 20, 2023), is brought arising from the putative class members' purchase of ineffective and worthless (or, certainly worth less) over-the-counter oral or liquid (not nasal) drugs that were designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or ultimately sold by Defendants in the United States that contained phenylephrine ("PE"). Such products for Reckitt include but are not limited to: Alka-Seltzer Plus Severe Cold+Flu (Bayer), Theraflu Severe Cold & Cough (GSK), Multi-Symptom Cold & Flu Relief (Rite Aid), Sinus Pressure & Congestion Relief PE (Rite Aid), and Sinus Pressure & Pain (Walgreens). All of Defendants' PE-containing products are referred to as "PE Drugs." The Defendants' PE Drugs are marketed by them as effective for treating indications identified, most often nasal congestion. On September 12, 2023, an FDA advisory panel unanimously voted 16-0 that PE is not effective for treating nasal congestion. As stated by the panel, PE is "not effective as a nasal decongestant." Thus, it recommends avoiding unnecessary costs or delays in care by "taking a drug that has no benefit." The Defendants represented that their PE Drugs were properly branded and effective for treating the indications identified, including inter alia treating nasal congestion. These represents were false and deceptive, as Defendants' PE Drugs were not effective for treating all the indications identified and/or were misbranded. Further, each Defendant willfully ignored scientific and industry knowledge concerning the lack of effectiveness of PE Drugs for treating the indications identified, and performed inadequate testing and quality oversight of their respective PE Drugs to ascertain properly the true efficacy of their PE Drugs for treating the indications identified (principally, nasal decongestion). Thus, Defendants' PE drugs are non-merchantable, not fit for ordinary purpose, and are not effective for treating the indications identified, and were misbranded as a result, says the complaint. The Plaintiff paid money for Defendants' PE Drugs. The Defendant has been engaged in the manufacturing, sale, and/or distribution of misbranded and ineffective PE Drugs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 435-1300 Email: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com BLUE CROSS: Steinhardt Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Barry S. Steinhardt, an individual on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Blue Cross of California, Anthem Blue Cross of California, American Specialty Health Fitness, Inc., American Specialty health Incorporated, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 2:23-cv-04087 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01737-L-KSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Anthem Blue Cross of California -- https://www.anthem.com/ca -- offers affordable Medicare, Medicaid, medical, dental, and vision insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM APC 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-1555 Phone: (626) 744-9125 Fax: (626) 744-9436 Email: paul@cullenlegal.com The Respondents are represented by: Colleen Therese Flaherty, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 340 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 257-2525 Fax: (510) 628-2146 Email: colleen.flaherty@mhllp.com - and - Jennifer H. Chung, Esq. Thomas F. A. Hetherington, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 337-5595 Fax: (713) 337-8850 BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Eddlemon Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORION EDDLEMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01264-CRL-JEH (C.D. Ill.), Eddlemon requests that the Court grant him leave to file the reply in support of his motion for class certification On August 16, 2023, Eddlemon filed his motion for class certification. On August 30, 2023, Bradley University filed its Opposition to Eddlemon's Motion for Class Certification. Bradley offers a comprehensive array of undergraduate and graduate academic programs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PvxWn3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H, #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com mpeterson@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com BRADY MARTZ: Koffler Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Koffler, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRADY MARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Case No. 3:23-cv-00183-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., Sept. 20, 2023), is brought seeking relief for the consequences of Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information; its failure to reasonably provide timely notification that Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information had been compromised by an unauthorized third party; and for intentionally and unconscionably deceiving Plaintiff and Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of their Private Information. As part of its accounting operations, Defendant collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personal information, including, but not limited to: Social Security numbers, dates of birth, full names, addresses, telephone numbers, driver's license numbers (collectively, "personally identifying information" or "PII"). The firm also collected medical information from its clients, including but not limited to: treatment information, diagnoses, and prescription information, medical record numbers, health insurance information, and other protected health information (collectively, "private health information" or "PHI"). Further, Defendant also collects financial account/payment card information ("financial account information") (collectively, with PII and PHI, "Private Information"). On November 19, 2022, Defendant noticed unusual activity on its networks. It then retained independent cybersecurity specialists to investigate. On August 31, 2023, Defendant's investigations determined that unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. On September 8, 2023, Defendant dispatched a data breach notice to individuals whose information was accessed in this incident. As Defendant stored and handled such highly-sensitive PII, PHI, and financial account information, it had a duty and obligation to safeguard this information and prevent unauthorized third parties from accessing this data. Ultimately, Defendant failed to fulfill these obligations as unauthorized cybercriminals breached Defendant's information systems and databases and stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members. This breach and the successful exfiltration of Private Information were direct, proximate, and foreseeable results of multiple failings on the part of Defendant. The data breach occurred because Defendant inexcusably failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard its information systems and databases. Thereafter, Defendant inexcusably failed to timely detect this data breach. Prior the breach occurred, Defendant failed to inform the public that its data security practices were deficient and inadequate. Had Plaintiff and the Class been made aware of this fact, they would have never provided such information to Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received Defendant's Data Breach Notice. Brady Martz is an accounting, tax, and audit services firm operating based in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and operating throughout North Dakota and in northwestern Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Q. Purdon, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1207 West Divide Avenue, Suite 200 Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: 701-255-3000 Email: tpurdon@robinskaplan.com - and - Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Alex Lee, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com alee@caffertyclobes.com BRAMALO PASTA: Zazzarino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Frank Zazzarino, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BRAMALO PASTA & PIZZA BAR LLC, d/b/a TRENTO, EMILIO BRANCHINELLI, and BRANCHINELLI, LORENZO, Case No. 615225/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Sept. 20, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid tip credit; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to off-the-clock work; unpaid overtime wages due to improper blended overtime rates; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff similarly suffered from unpaid overtime wages due to Defendants failing to properly "blend" or "weigh" the averages of Plaintiff's different hourly rates ($14/per hour vs. $17/per hour) when he worked different positions that were compensated at different hourly rates. The Defendants would always calculate and compensate Plaintiff's overtime wages based on his lower hourly rates when working hours in excess of 40, instead of properly averaging out both of Plaintiff's hourly rate, determining what Plaintiff's "regular rate" was for that week and then calculating his "blended" overtime rate off of that "blended" regular rate. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members their proper wages due to Defendants' policy of time-shaving. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members their proper wages due to Defendants' policy of requiring employees to perform off-the-clock work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work multiple roles, including: Server, Bartender, and Banquet Staff for Defendants' "Trento" restaurant. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant, "Trento" located in Farmingdale, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 100111 Phone: 212-465-1180 Fax: 212-465-1181 BRITA PRODUCTS: Brown Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nicholas Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Brita Products Company, Case No. 23STCV19534 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07851 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Brita GmbH -- https://www.brita.com/ -- is a German manufacturer of water filters headquartered in Taunusstein near Wiesbaden, Hesse.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Mark A. Neubauer, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2913 Phone: (310) 843-6300 Fax: (310) 843-6301 Email: mneubauer@carltonfields.com BUMBLE INC: Must Face BIPA Class Action Over Badoo App ------------------------------------------------------ Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Bumble Inc. failed to convince a federal judge to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction a class action over alleged biometric privacy violations caused by a verification feature in its dating app Badoo. The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 19 said jurisdictional discovery was necessary to determine whether Bumble and two of its subsidiaries, Buzz Holdings L.P. and Bumble Trading LLC, were subject to the court's jurisdiction. Kemelle Howell, a Badoo user since 2016, sued the companies in 2021, for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act over its verification tool. [GN] CABLECOM LLC: Pulu Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jason Pulu, Jerome Pulu, Thompson Pulu, Maximum Fairclough, and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. CABLECOM, LLC, AND DOES 1-25, Case No. 23-CIV-03832 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04828. The Complaint asserts claims for: Unpaid Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Liquidated Damages under Failure to Provide Meal Periods under Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay Wages under Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of California Labor Code; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Sick Pay; Violation of California Business & Professions Code; Private Attorneys' General Act (PAGA); Civil Penalties Under Labor Code and Violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq. Eric E. Suits, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 Email: alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com eric.suits@ogletree.com CALGARY, AB: Law Firms Mull E. Coli Class Actions Against Daycares ------------------------------------------------------------------ Henna Saeed, writing for CityNews Everywhere, reports that while E. coli patients infected at Calgary daycares recover, at least two law firms in the city are preparing class action lawsuits. But will they be against the daycares, the central kitchen, the government or all of them? "There is precedent for government being named as a defendant, those cases though have almost unilaterally or almost universally been dismissed," said Lorian Hardcastle, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary's faculty of lawn, who specializes in law and policy. Lawyer Clint Docken says this E. coli lawsuit could be against the daycares, the central kitchen, the government, or all of them and damage compensation depends on the severity of the injury. "The injury can be anything from a minor stomach ache to obviously more serious cases, the HUS cases," he explained. Representing one of two law firms working on the class action lawsuit, Docken says E.coli patients from the initial outbreak at 11 Calgary daycares as well as the secondary ones from the additional six daycares, all of them are eligible for this lawsuit. Hardcastle says there might be more players now, but in the end there will be just one class action lawsuit in this case. "One of the reasons that courts pursue class actions or allow class actions is because of efficiency," she said. "And so the courts preference is likely going to be to have this go ahead with the largest possible group of potential plaintiffs, rather than having multiple actions." Hardcastle says E. coli families, especially the infected children, seem to have a strong case. "Even if the sources never identify there's a reasonable argument these children could make that it's more likely than not that their E. coli came from this central kitchen," the assistant professor said. "I think that the public health violations that have been found are helpful to making that arguments that there was unreasonableness, but they're not necessarily determinative." With the Alberta government still struggling to find the cause of the outbreak, Docken says it only increases their chances of winning the lawsuit. "We will have the benefit of an exhaustive investigation," he said. "And when you're dealing with tainted meat, assuming you pinpoint the cause, and you can establish negligence, you're likely to be successful in terms of any litigation." [GN] CAMOFIRE LLC: Santana Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camofire, L.L.C. The case is styled as Juan Santana, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camofire, L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-01083-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Camofire -- https://www.camofire.com/ -- is a hunting gear store that brings you a new lineup of deals everyday.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com CARGILL MEAT: Villa Suit Seeks to Certify Production Worker Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VILLA and SUSAN DAVIDSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-01321-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): The proposed class is defined as follows: "All production workers who, during any week since July 12, 2019, were employed by Cargill at a Pennsylvania Plant, paid an hourly wage, and paid for working 40 or more hours during at least one week." Cargill is a subsidiary of the Minneapolis-based multinational agribusiness giant Cargill Inc, that comprises Cargill's North American beef, turkey, food service and food distribution businesses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t99FeY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq. Michelle L. Tolodziecki, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 - and - Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 - and - Marielle Macher, Esq. DeJonna Bates, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 118 Locust Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 236-9486 CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Johnson Sues Over Debt Misrepresentation ----------------------------------------------------------- Kasey Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01130-JAM (D. Conn., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("the FDCPA") as a result of the Defendant's misrepresentation of the amount owed on the alleged debt to Plaintiff. Prior to August 24, 2022, Plaintiff contacted the Defendant to receive verification documents to an alleged obligation Defendant was collecting upon. On August 24, 2022, Defendant mailed a letter enclosed with documents to verify the alleged debt. This Letter states "this is an attempt to collect a debt." The Letter includes information about the alleged debt which misrepresents the characteristics of the alleged debt. According to the Letter, the last payment made on the alleged debt was for $46.52 on February 26, 2018. According to the Letter, the balance of the alleged debt was $2,124.05 at the charge off date of September 11, 2018. According to the Letter, the amount owed on the alleged debt is $2,079.62 The calculation for the amount due ($2,079.62) was not provided, and it is not reasonably calculatable from the information provided in the letter. The balance at the time of charge off ($2,124.05) minus the last payment made ($46.52) equals $2,077.53. This calculation does not match the total amount owed according to Defendant's Letter. The Defendant does not clarify whether the last payment made was offset from the charge off balance or offset from the total amount owed. The balance that was charged off was done on September 11, 2018, after the final payment of $46.52 was made on February 26, 2018. However, the Defendant states in the Letter that the total amount of debt owed is $2,079.62. The Defendant does not provide its basis for supporting its contention that this is the total amount owed on the alleged debt. The Plaintiff was unsure exactly what amount was owed. Because the Letter misrepresents that amount for the alleged debt, Defendant's Letter violates the FDCPA because it fails to properly inform the Plaintiff on the total amount owed on the alleged debt. Accordingly, Defendant's conduct violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Oregon. The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CEDAR REALTY: Court Junks Consolidated Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on August 1, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a decision and order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, without leave to amend, and denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify a question of law to the Maryland Supreme Court. On April 8, 2022, several purported holders of the company's outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint against the company, the Board of Directors prior to the Merger, and WHLR in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland entitled "Sydney, et al. v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al.," Case No. C-15-CV-22-001527. On May 6, 2022, Sydney filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 11, 2022, the Company, the former Board of Directors of the Company and WHLR removed the Sydney action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland under Case No. 8:22-cv-01142-GLR. On May 16, 2022, the court ordered that a hearing on Sydney's motion for preliminary injunction be held on June 22, 2022. The court consolidated the motion for preliminary injunction. On June 23, 2022, following a hearing, the court issued an order denying both motions for preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits and that plaintiffs had not established that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was denied. By order dated July 11, 2022, the court consolidated the Sydney case and set an August 24, 2022 deadline for the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on August 24, 2022. The amended complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of holders of the company's preferred stock, among other things, claims for breach of contract against the company and the former Board of Directors with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the company's preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty against the former Board of Directors, and tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against WHLR. On October 7, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss and filed a motion to certify a question of law to Maryland’s Supreme Court. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that focuses on owning and operating income producing retail properties with a primary focus on grocery-anchored shopping centers primarily in the Northeast. At June 30, 2023, the company owned a portfolio of 19 operating properties. Cedar Realty Trust Partnership, L.P. is the entity through which the company conducts substantially all of its business and owns (either directly or through subsidiaries) substantially all of its assets. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Vladasi Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Dorjan Vladasi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba VERIZON WIRELESS, Case No. 2384CV1916 (Commonwealth of Mass., Aug. 23, 2023), is brought for violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act ("Wage Act") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime compensation. The Plaintiff had worked, but had not been paid, for 40 hours. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff had accrued 322 vacation hours that he had not used. Verizon did not pay Plaintiff for the time he had worked (40 hours), nor for his accrued and unused vacation time (322 hours), on the date that it terminated him. By policy and practice, Verizon failed and continues to fail to pay Massachusetts based employees all wages due in a timely manner and within the statutorily prescribed period after terminating, or otherwise involuntarily separating Massachusetts based employees from their employment, in violation of the Wage Act. Plaintiff seeks, among other forms of relief, statutory treble damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, as provided for by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of Verizon working in Massachusetts through his involuntary separation from the Company. Verizon is a wireless service provider aiming its services towards individuals and business of all sizes, including without limitation in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilir Kavaja, Esq. KAVAJA LAW 92 State Street, 8th Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 515-5545 Email: ilir@kavajalaw.com - and - Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq. BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C. 24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141 Phone: (617) 577-8800 Email: eleblapg@bennettandbelfort.com CHICAGO, IL: Police Stops Class Action Settlement Gets Final Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Romanucci & Blandin, LLC and Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge on Sept. 20 announced the final approval of the Settlement Agreement reached in their Investigatory Stop Class Action Lawsuit versus the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department. The agreement was approved in July 2023 by the Chicago Council, and on Sept. 20 received final approval by Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The class action lawsuit challenged investigatory stop practices by CPD officers for years, alleging widespread Fourth Amendment Violations for police stops, largely of Black and Hispanic men, without reasonable articulable suspicion. The landmark agreement includes enhanced training, supervision and accountability systems, more community involvement, policy changes, and binding judicial oversight -- all designed to help officers do their job more effectively, build community confidence in the police department, and more effectively use police resources. The $5 million settlement includes payments to five named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were represented by Founding Partner Antonio M. Romanucci and Partner Martin D. Gould of Romanucci & Blandin, and Partners Steven Hart and Brian Eldridge of Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge. This Agreement is the product of more than six years of litigation between the parties and builds on the reforms underway at CPD by expanding the scope of the Consent Decree being overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer to include oversight and reform of CPD's policies and training related to investigatory stops as well as data collection and analysis by CPD. The City of Chicago, CPD, and Plaintiffs entered into this settlement with the shared recognition that the ability of a police department to protect the community it serves is only as strong as the relationship it has with that community. The agreed-upon reforms to investigatory stop practices aim to build and strengthen relationships between CPD, its officers, and all members of the community. The purpose of this Agreement is to ensure that the City of Chicago and CPD protect the statutory and Constitutional rights of all members of the community, treat individuals with dignity and respect, enhance both officer and public safety and improve the City's ability to effectively address crime by increasing public confidence in the CPD. At the same time, the parties recognize that police officers work in difficult conditions. In this Agreement, the City commits to ensuring that its officers have the necessary resources to perform their duties successfully and within Constitutional boundaries to promote officer and public safety. This Agreement is a positive step towards significant, lasting change for CPD, and the communities it serves. About Romanucci & Blandin, LLC Romanucci & Blandin is a Chicago-based national trial practice committed to fighting for victims of negligence, abuse and wrongful death. For 25 years, we have secured more than $850 million in verdicts and settlements for our clients - many for millions of dollars and others record-setting awards. Our experience ranges from mass shootings, civil rights and police misconduct to medical malpractice, sexual abuse, motor vehicle accidents or workplace injury cases involving individual or institutional negligence. Romanucci & Blandin is a valuable legal resource to individuals and groups of people who have been injured by others' wrongdoing. Referring attorneys and clients say several factors differentiate our firm: Our record of success, depth of experience, talented and dedicated legal team, tireless preparation and strategic use of communications to fight for the rights of those whose lives have been changed forever. We are different from other personal injury firms in that our work does not stop when a verdict or settlement is secured. We are often inspired by our clients' experiences and commit resources to create change in our communities. For more information about Romanucci & Blandin, please visit www.rblaw.net or call (312) 626-7614. About Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC ("HME") is a firm of trial lawyers specializing in civil rights, mass tort, and class action cases. The attorneys at HME practice on a nationwide basis in both federal and state courts and are actively involved in some of the largest and most significant cases in the country. HME attorneys are invested in the fight for justice and consistently take on cases to advance civil justice and equal rights. HME prides itself on winning complex cases, fiercely advocating for its clients, and being a driving force behind civil and social change in Chicago and throughout the country. HME's civil rights practice includes cases involving wrongful convictions, wrongful shootings, police brutality, and unconstitutional policing. HME has also successfully challenged police policies through civil rights and class action cases in both Illinois in elsewhere. For more information about Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge please visit www.hmelegal.com or call (312) 955-0545. [GN] CIGNA CORP: Faces 2nd Class Suit Over Claims Processing Software ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Pifer, writing for HealthCare Dive, reports that Cigna is facing a second class action lawsuit over the health insurer's use of software to automate claims processing. The lawsuit filed in Connecticut district court late August alleges Cigna's "procedure-to-diagnosis" or PxDx software reviewed and denied customer claims in batches without a medical professional reviewing those decisions. Cigna faces an almost identical lawsuit in California that was filed earlier this summer. The payer defends the technology as a standard review process similar to those used by other insurers Dive Insight: Cigna has been in the hot seat over its use of automatic claims processing software since earlier this year, after a ProPublica investigation found Cigna physicians used PxDx to automatically reject claims without opening a patient's file. The House Energy and Commerce Committee and state regulators are investigating Cigna's use of the software, and in July two Cigna members in California sued the payer, alleging they were illegally denied payment because of PxDx. The algorithm works by flagging discrepancies between a diagnosis and what Cigna considers acceptable tests and procedures for that condition. The suits allege the Connecticut-based payer used the technology to deny payment to hundreds or thousands at a time. That lawsuit -- and the new suit filed in Connecticut -- both cite ProPublica findings that PxDx was used to reject more than 300,000 requests for payment over two months in 2022. The average time taken to deny each claim was just 1.2 seconds. The plaintiff in the Connecticut suit alleges she was denied reimbursement for a medically necessary colonoscopy and endoscopy as a result of Cigna "automatically and algorithmically denying claims." Insurance laws and regulations in many states require reviews of medical records before payers deny claims for medical reasons. Connecticut statute requires health insurers to conduct a "reasonable investigation based on all available information." In response to the new suit, a Cigna spokesperson directed Healthcare Dive to the payer's previous public statement about the PxDx allegations. "This copycat suit is baseless," the spokesperson added. "Based on our research, the claim in the complaint was not subject to Cigna's PxDx review, and the complaint seems to be based on an article riddled with factual errors and misinformation." The suit filed in Connecticut seeks class action status covering every individual nationwide who had claims reviewed using PxDx. The exact size of that group is unknown but could be significant -- currently, the payer provides medical coverage to 19.5 million people in the U.S. [GN] CLOSING PRO: Seplow Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Closing Pro, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brian Seplow, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Closing Pro, Inc., d/b/a ClosingPro, Brendan Nolan, Case No. 2:23-cv-03628 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Closing Pro provides closing attorney services for home buyers, sellers, investors and lenders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. PEIRCE LAW OFFICES 707 Grant St., 2500 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com COMMSCOPE INC: Huffman Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Randall Huffman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COMMSCOPE, INC. OF NORTH CAROLINA, and COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00132-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession, custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data Breach"). The number of total breach victims is unknown, but on information and belief, the Data Breach has impacted at least thousands of former and current employees. The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of former and current employees' highly personal information, including names, Social Security numbers, address, emails, phone numbers, and financial account number ("personally identifying information" or "PII"). The Data Breach occurred on March 27, 2023. However, CommScope did not become aware of suspicious activity on its network until "recently," providing cybercriminals unfettered access to its network system until CommScope discovered the Breach. CommScope struggled to identify what information and which individuals were impacted by the Data Breach and took until April 24, 2023, to complete their internal investigation. On May 12, 2023, CommScope finally began notifying Class Members about the widespread Data Breach ("Notice Letter"). However, CommScope has not completed notification of Class Members and continues to do so. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its employees vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's PII, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its employees. The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But the Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim receiving a Breach Notice dated May 12, 2023. CommScope is a network infrastructure provider that creates "the world's most advanced networks."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Martin A. Ramey, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. Elise H. Wilson, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 Phone: (910) 772-9960 Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com mjr@rhinelawfirm.com ras@rhinelawfirm.com ehw@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com COMPUTER TASK: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Cegeka Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2023 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Computer Task Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:CTG), relating to its proposed sale to Cegeka Groep NV. Under the terms of the agreement, CTG shareholders will receive $10.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/computer-task-group-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. American National Bankshares Inc. (Nasdaq:AMNB), relating to its proposed sale to Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, AMNB shareholders will receive 1.35 shares of Atlantic per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/american-national-bankshares-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Crestwood Equity Partners LP (NYSE:CEQP), relating to its proposed sale to Energy Transfer LP. Under the terms of the agreement, CEQP shareholders will receive 2.07 shares of Energy Transfer per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/crestwood-equity-partners-lp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] COUNTYLINE AUTO: Paramo Files Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Countyline Auto Center, Inc. The case is styled as Alba Viviana Paramo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Countyline Auto Center, Inc. doing business as: Lexus of North Miami, Case No. 0:23-cv-61608-AHS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending. Countyline Auto Center, Inc., doing business as Lexus of North Miami -- https://www.lexusofpembrokepines.com/ -- provides automobiles services. The Company offers retail sale of new and used automobiles, finance, parts, and repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Andre Giribaldo, Esq. Alex Kruzyk, Esq. Pardell, Kruzyk and Giribaldo, PLCC 501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (737) 310-3211 Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com akruzyk@pkglegal.com - and - Logan Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Email: lpardell@pkglegal.com CUSTOM COMMERCIAL: Gidney Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Custom Commercial Dry Cleaners, LLC. The case is styled as Dr. Brett Gidney, Kerry Gidney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Custom Commercial Dry Cleaners, LLC doing business as: Frsteam By Custom Commercial d/b/a FRSTeam by Custom Commercial; Cohn, Roberts and Associates, LLC; Case No. 2:23-cv-06950-HDV-JC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Custom Commercial Dry Cleaners, LLC doing business as Frsteam By Custom Commercial -- https://frsteam.com/ -- are fabric, electronics, and textile restoration experts with locations across the US.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com DELTA MANAGEMENT: Caprio Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Management Associates, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ray Caprio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Delta Management Associates, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:23-cv-20526-WJM-ESK (S.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Delta -- http://www.deltamanagementassociates.com/-- provides comprehensive, strategic collection and portfolio management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com DIASPORA CO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diaspora Co., LLC. The case is styled as Allison Michele Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Diaspora Co., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08309-AS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Diaspora Co. -- https://www.diasporaco.com/ -- is a queer, woman of color owned business dedicated to putting money, equity and power into the hands of small, organic spice farmers across South Asia who are leading the way in sustainable, regenerative agriculture, and truly delicious spices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Hartline Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Lori Hartline, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Dollar General Corporation, DolGenCorp, LLC doing business as: Dollar General individually, jointly, severally, or in the alternative, Case No. 6:23-cv-00319-JAR (E.D. Okla., Sept. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Other Contract. Dollar General Corporation -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is an American chain of variety stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com DUCKETT FISHING: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duckett Fishing, LLC. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Duckett Fishing, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08322 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Duckett Fishing's -- https://duckettfishing.com/ -- mission is to provide professional anglers with the highest quality fishing equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com E P FLOORS CORP: Hatcher Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against E P Floors Corp., et al. The case is styled as Alexs Hatcher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E P Floors Corp., Robert Long, Case No. 2379CV00426 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Aug. 22, 2023). The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases." E P Floors Corp. -- https://epfloors.com/ -- is a vertically integrated industrial flooring company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State St. Boston, MA 02109 EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Glassman Seeks to Seal of Class Cert Exhibits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH GLASSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-07669-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order allowing him to file under seal documents and deposition transcripts containing information that Defendant or third parties designated as either Confidential or Highly Confidential -- Attorney's Eyes Only. The Plaintiff states that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. All other documents are filed concurrently with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff seeks to file the following documents under seal: -- Exhibits Nos 1-2, 6-11: documents that Edgewell produced in this matter and designated as Confidential. -- Exhibit No. 5: excerpts of the transcript of the deposition of Defendant's 30(b)(6) witness, Paola Cecilia Becvar, which Defendant designated as Confidential. -- The report of Plaintiff’s expert witness Colin Weir, which references materials containing Defendant's confidential sales information and materials that Defendant designated as Confidential. -- The report of Plaintiff's expert witness Steven P. Gaskin, which references materials containing Defendant's confidential sales information and materials that Defendant designated as Confidential. -- The report of Plaintiff's expert witness J. Michael Dennis, which references materials that Defendant designated as Confidential. -- The report of Plaintiff’s expert witness Craig Downs, which references materials that Defendant designated as Confidential. Edgewell offers shave, grooming, sun care, skin care, and feminine care products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tdKvM4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Lisa Omoto, Esq. Timothy J. Peter, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com tpeter@faruqilaw.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Glassman Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH GLASSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-07669-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to certify the classes, appoint Mr. Glassman as class representative, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following classes: -- the California Class "All persons in California, within the relevant statute of limitations period, who purchased the Sunscreen Products bearing the "Reef Friendly" claim; and -- the Multi-State Express Warranty Class "All persons in California, Delaware, D.C., Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia, within the relevant statute of limitations period, who purchased the Sunscreen Products bearing the "Reef Friendly" claim." However, in 2020, Edgewell started touting the Sunscreen Products as "Reef Friendly," even though they contained chemical UV filters that are unquestionably harmful to coral reefs and marine life, including octocrylene, avobenzone, homosalate, and octisalate ("Harmful Ingredients"). Edgewell did not need to include the UV filters; there are many forms of sunscreen that do not contains these harmful ingredients. Edgewell offers shave, grooming, sun care, skin care, and feminine care products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RRKqIz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Lisa Omoto, Esq. Timothy J. Peter, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com tpeter@faruqilaw.com EMANATE HEALTH: Valdez Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emanate Health. The case is styled as Rafael Valdez, Jr., Stefanie Diamond, Michael Belushi Lewis, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Emanate Health, Case No. 2:23-cv-07828-SVW-JPR (C.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wire Interception. Emanate Health -- https://www.emanatehealth.org/ -- provide quality health care from a compassionate staff to the East San Gabriel Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Y. Christopher Nagakawa, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (310) 765-1103 Email: christopher.nagakawa@zimmreed.com ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS: Moore Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Elizabeth Moore, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC, and Does 1–10, Case No. 23STCV19250 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07792. On June 30, 2023, EP experienced a cybersecurity breach, through which cybercriminals evaded EP's security systems and allegedly acquired personal information stored within a subset of EP's production accounting applications (the "Data Incident"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Data Incident was the result of the purported negligent failure to maintain reasonable data security procedures and practices. Based on these allegations, plaintiff asserts nine grounds for relief: negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"), violation of the California Customer Records Act ("CRA"), violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), violation of the right to privacy, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Shon Morgan, Esq. Viola Trebicka, Esq. Anthony P. Alden, Esq. Jennifer English, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Phone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Email: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com anthonyalden@quinnemanuel.com jenniferenglish@quinnemanuel.com EPIC GAMES: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Action for $245-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Tanasia Kenney, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a federal complaint over Fortnite's accused privacy violations and unwanted charges ended in a $245 million settlement. Now, some players may be entitled to a cut of the money. The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday, Sept. 19, announced the claims process after Fortnite's parent company, Epic Games, agreed to resolve accusations that it used "design tricks" to get users to make unintended in-game purchases. "The company also made it easy for children to rack up charges without parental consent and locked the accounts of consumers who disputed unauthorized charges with their credit card companies," the commission said. The FTC said it began notifying affected users -- more than 37 million people -- via email. In a statement posted on its website in December, when the company and the FTC agreed to a settlement, Epic Games said it's making the necessary changes "to ensure our ecosystem meets the expectations of our players and regulators." "The video game industry is a place of fast-moving innovation, where player expectations are high and new ideas are paramount," the statement reads, in part. "We accepted this agreement because we want Epic to be at the forefront of consumer protection and provide the best experience for our players." The deadline to file claim is Jan. 17, 2024. Here's how to claim your share: WHO'S ELIGIBLE? You may claim a refund if: You were charged in-game currency for unwanted items between January 2017 and September 2022. Your child charged your credit card without you knowing between January 2017 and November 2018. You were locked out of your account between January 2017 and September 2022 after disputing the unauthorized charges to your credit card company. Users must also be at least 18 years old to file a claim. HOW DO I APPLY FOR A REFUND? Affected players can complete and submit a claim form online, the FTC said. You'll need a claim number, provided via email, or your Epic Account ID. HOW MUCH WILL I GET PAID? The commission advised that refund amounts are dependent on multiple factors, including how many people submit a valid claim. WHEN WILL I GET PAID? The mailing date for potential payment hasn't been announced, the FTC said. [GN] FAHERTY BRAND: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Faherty Brand, LLC, Case No. 30-02023-01337235-CU-MT-CXC was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01574-JVS-JDE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Faherty Brand -- https://fahertybrand.com/ -- is an American clothing company, founded by twin brothers Alex and Mike Faherty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew S Kenefick, Esq. JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER AND MITCHELL LLP Two Embarcadero Center 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3813 Phone: (415) 398-8080 Fax: (415) 398-5584 Email: mkenefick@jmbm.com FEDEX GROUND: Suit Seeks to Certify Putative Class of Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUZANNE ALFONSO, STEVEN SLATER, JOSHUA ADKINS and ROBERT DUQUETTE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01644-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification of the putative class of workers pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant allegedly violated the Connecticut Wage Act ("CWA") by failing to pay their hourly workers for all time it requires the class to be on the premises of the employer without pay. The Plaintiffs brought this action as representative parties on behalf of the putative class because (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Plaintiffs move this Court to certify the following class: "All current and former employees of Defendant who were employed as hourly, nonexempt workers at Defendant’s Windsor, South Windsor, Middletown, Wallingford, Stratford, and Willington Connecticut facilities at any time from August 1, 2018, through the date of final judgment in this matter, except for Milly Martinez." Fedex provides package delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZtiGLX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. Durkin, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: Tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com FIDELITY LIFE: Clerc Sues Over Failure to Implement Data Security ----------------------------------------------------------------- Antoine Clerc, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIDELITY LIFE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-13763 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 15, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent cyberattack and data breach ("Data Breach") resulting from Fidelity's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. Former and current Fidelity customers are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain insurance and/or other services from Defendant. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the consumer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On May 31, 2023, Defendant learned that one its IT vendor's networks (Pension Benefit Information, LLC or "PBI") had been penetrated by a cyberattack. In response, PBI "promptly launched an investigation into the nature and scope of the" Data Breach. According to the Notice of Data Breach letter sent by PBI, on behalf of Defendant, to Plaintiff and other victims of the Data Breach (the "Notice Letter"), the compromised PII included individuals' full names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to 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. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures and ensure those measures were followed by its IT vendors to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an 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. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received the Notice of Data Breach letter. Fidelity is an Illinois-based company that provides life insurance and other financial services to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com FISKARS BRANDS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated v. FISKARS BRANDS, INC., a Wisconsin corporation d/b/a WWW.FISKARS.COM, Case No. 23STCV12728 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07814. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a single cause of action under the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2710 et seq. ("VPPA"). Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees from the Defendant for alleged injuries.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Zoe K. Wilhelm, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: +1 310 203 4000 Facsimile: +1 310 229 1285 Email: zoe.wilhelm@faegredrinker.com FIVE9 INC: Duncan Suit Removed to N.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as Raesheena Duncan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Five9, Inc., Case No. 2023CH07439 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13779 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Five9 -- https://www.five9.com/ -- is a leading provider of cloud contact center software.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A Mazzuchetti, Esq. Whitney Smith, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP One Jefferson Road, 2nd Fl Parsippany, NJ 07054 Phone: (973) 503-5900 Email: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com WSmith@kelleydrye.com FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES: Bradds Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tammy Lynn Bradds and Anthony Testa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. d/b/a TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 23-CA-014364 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Sept. 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-02127-TPB-JSS. The Plaintiffs allege that, "on May 12, 2023," TGH suffered a data security incident wherein "unauthorized cybercriminals breached TGH's information systems and databases." The Plaintiffs further allege that the intrusion allowed "cybercriminals unfettered access to the sensitive Private Information1 of TGH's patients," which caused "Plaintiffs and over a million individuals to suffer substantial harm and injury" (the "Data Incident"). The Plaintiffs also claim that TGH could have prevented the Data Incident had it "taken sufficient and reasonable measures to safeguard its data security systems." Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert seven causes of action against TGH: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract; bailment; intrusion upon seclusion; unjust enrichment; and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com - and - Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Sarah A. Ballard, Esq. 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.861.0600 Facsimile: 303.861.7805 FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES: Colon Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Elia Colon, Anthony James, Tiffany James, Dolly Maldonado, La'tasha Mann, John Mcdonald, Alyscia Ramos, Angel Ramos, Tomkia Richardson, Helen Scott, Radames Velez, and Charyetta Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC., d/b/a TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 23-CA-013991 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 23, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01909-MSS-CPT. The Plaintiff alleges that, "on May 31, 2023, TGH detected unusual activity on its computer systems" and determined that "an unauthorized third party accessed TGH's network and obtained certain files from its systems between May 12 and May 30, 2023," (the "Data Incident"), which resulted in the alleged compromise of Personal Information1 of approximately 1.2 million individuals, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Data Incident occurred as a result of TGH's alleged "failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Personal Information from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack." Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against TGH: negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; declaratory and injunctive relief; and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), unjust enrichment; and injunctive and declaratory relief.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com - and - Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Sarah A. Ballard, Esq. 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.861.0600 Facsimile: 303.861.7805 FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES: Ramirez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned David Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC., d/b/a TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 23-CA-014150 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01890-SDM-TGW. The Plaintiff alleges that, "on or around May 31, 2023, TGH detected unusual activity on its computer systems" and determined that "an unauthorized third party accessed TGH's network and obtained certain files from its systems between May 12 and May 30, 2023," (the "Data Incident"), which resulted in the alleged compromise of Personal Information1 of approximately 1.2 million individuals, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Data Incident occurred as a result of TGH's alleged "failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Personal Information from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack." Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against TGH: negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; declaratory and injunctive relief; and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407.649.4000 Facsimile: 407.841.0168 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com - and - Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Sarah A. Ballard, Esq. 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303.861.0600 Facsimile: 303.861.7 FOSTANI LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fostani, LLC. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fostani, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08206 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fostani, LLC -- https://fostani.com/ -- offers extensive range of women's clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com FRED MEYER STORES: Shields Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Randy Shields, on behalf of himself, and as a representative of similarly situated persons v. FRED MEYER STORES INC., Case No. 23-2-14835-5 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Sept. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01455. In the Complaint, Mr. Shields alleges that, on occasion, he uses a Direct Express Debit Mastercard (the debit card) to prepay for gasoline at "Fred Meyer, Fuel Outlet #459, in Renton, Washington," but does not end up pumping as much gasoline as he authorized payment for, and expects to receive credit back on his debit card for the value of the unpumped gasoline. Mr. Shields alleges he realized in July 2022 that he did not receive a credit for about $16 worth of unpumped gasoline and, upon speaking to a customer service representative, confirmed his debit card had not been credited the value of the unpumped gasoline. He asserts that representatives conducted "additional investigation" and then told him that his card had not been credited the value of unpumped gasoline "several times" and had been double charged for prepaid gasoline "on more than one occasion." The representatives allegedly reimbursed Mr. Shields "for some of the uncredited prepaid" gasoline charges but told him he "could not receive reimbursement for such uncredited amounts that had occurred more than six months before the discovery that he had not received reimbursement or for the unjustified duplicate charges to his debit card account." Mr. Shields alleges this conduct violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act and constitutes conversion, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Fred Burnside, Esq. Caleah Whitten, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206.622.3150 main Fax: 206.757.7700 Email: FredBurnside@dwt.com CaleahWhitten@dwt.com FREEPORT MINERALS: Stretz Files Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freeport Minerals Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Thomas Stretz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freeport Minerals Corporation and Freeport-McMoRan Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-01943-MTM (D. Ariz., Sept. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach of Contract. FCX -- https://fcx.com/ -- operates large, long-lived, geographically diverse assets with significant proven and probable reserves of copper, gold and molybdenum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen M Auer, Esq. Elaine Ryan, Esq. AUER RYAN PLLC 20987 N John Wayne Pkwy., Ste. B104-374 Maricopa, AZ 85139 Phone: (520) 705-7332 Fax: (602) 560-0256 Email: cauer@auer-ryan.com eryan@auer-ryan.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Sam Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Ste. 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com FRIEDLAND PROPERTIES: Cercado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Cercado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRIEDLAND PROPERTIES INC. and LARSTRAND CORPORATION, AMAURY LOPEZ and ANTHONY TORRES, as individuals, Case No. 1:23-cv-08137 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff regularly worked 55 hours or more hours, each week from July 31, 2019 until December 2019, and approximately 45 hours or more hours, each week from January 2020 until March 2023, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. FRIEDLAND PROPERTIES INC. is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State 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 Phone: 718-263-9591 FUJIFILM IRVINE: B.B. Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fujifilm Irvine Scientific, Inc. The case is styled as B.B., M.B., T.H., M.H., individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Fujifilm Irvine Scientific, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-06893-DDP-AS (C.D. Cal., Aug. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability for Contract Dispute. FUJIFILM Irvine Scientific -- https://www.irvinesci.com/ -- is a worldwide leader in the innovation and manufacture of cell culture media, reagents, and medical devices for researchers and clinicians.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Marc Poulin, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com blake@akimlawfirm.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com - and - John C. Bohren, Esq. BOHREN LAW 8560 West Sunset Boulevard, 4th Floor West Hollywood, CA 90069 Phone: (619) 433-2803 Fax: (800) 867-6779 Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com The Plaintiff is represented by: Alycia Degen, Esq. Debra E. Pole, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 896-6682 Fax: (213) 896-6600 Email: adegen@sidley.com dpole@sidley.com GAT AIRLINE: Manu Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Ulualofaiga Manu, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. GAT AIRLINE GROUND SUPPORT, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23CV003422 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01988-AC. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eight causes of action against Defendant: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to reimburse employees for requirements expenses; failure to provide wages due on termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert Mussig, Esq. Devin S. Lindsay, Esq. Emma Husseman, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Phone: 213.620.1780 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 Email: rmussig@sheppardmullin.com dlindsay@sheppardmullin.com ehusseman@sheppardmullin.com GEISINGER HEALTH: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geisinger Health and Doe Entities 1-99, Case No. 23CV1911 was removed from the Court Of Common Pleas Of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01525-RDM. The Plaintiff alleges that Geisinger engaged in unlawful wiretapping and invaded her privacy by installing third-party source code for the Meta Pixel on Geisinger's public website and patient portal. Because the conduct challenged by Plaintiff was undertaken pursuant to the federal government's extensive efforts to build a nationwide health information technology infrastructure over the past two decades, this case is removable under the Federal Officer Removal statute.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Edward J. McAndrew, Esq. Justin M. Kadoura, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Phone: 215.568.3100 Facsimile: 215.568.3439 Email: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Ortiz Sues Over Defective Bumper Shutter Grills --------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Briones Ortiz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 3:23-cv-04303-LJC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2023), is brought arising out of GM's failure to properly identify the bumper shutter grills (also referred to as grill or grill shutters or bumper shutters) in 2017-2019 Chevrolet Silverado, 2017-2019 GMC Sierra, 2017-2019 Chevrolet Suburban, 2017-2019 GMC Yukon and 2017-2019 Cadillac Escalade vehicles, all of which are distributed by GM ("Class Vehicles"), as high-priced parts covered under the California Emissions Warranty (California Code of Regulations ("CCR") Title 13, Section 2035 et seq.) and failure to pay for the diagnosis, repair, and replacement of the bumper shutter grills for 7 years or 70,000 miles in violation of the California Emissions Warranty. As a result of GM not providing proper warranty coverage for bumper shutters in Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and members of the Classes have paid, and are continuing to pay, out of pocket for repairs that should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty. GM's conduct violates, and continues to violate, California's unfair business practices statute, California Business and Professions Code (the "UCL"). Plaintiff also seeks public injunctive relief pursuant to the UCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff had his vehicle diagnosed by a factory authorized GM dealership located in Alameda County. GM is organized under the State of Delaware with its business address located in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Starr, Esq. Adam M. Rose, Esq. Theodore R. Tang, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC 23901 Calabasas Road, STE #2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 Email: robert@starrlaw.com adam@starrlaw.com theodore@starrlaw.com - and - Manny Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com - and - Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 432-8492 Email: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com GLEN RAVEN INC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glen Raven, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Glen Raven, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08138 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Glen Raven, Inc. is a fabric manufacturing and marketing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com GOLDEN ARCUS: Hai Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Yang Hai, an individual and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees v. GOLDEN ARCUS INT'L CO., a California corporation, YU ZHOU, an individual, ANITA WU, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV20501 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 25, 2023), is brought against the Defendants violation of the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act as a result of unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was not compensated the minimum wage for all hours worked and was forced to work hours off the clock; was not provided with accurate itemized wage and hour statements pursuant to applicable Labor Code requirements, was not compensated all wages earned and owed in a timely manner as required by the Labor Code; worked more than 8 hours in any given day and/or more than 40 hours in any given week, but was not paid overtime compensation pursuant to applicable Labor Code requirements; was retaliated against in violation of Labor Code; and was not paid all wages earned and owed at the time of his or her termination or within 72 hours of his or her resignation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as an operations coordinator. Golden Arcus is a freight forwarding enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq. Lisa Noveck, Esq. Jameson Evans, Esq. Amanda M. Thompson, Esq. EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C. 1 S. Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (310) 853-3461 Facsimile: (949) 743-5442 Email. jonathanl@pierrelacour.com lisan@pietrelacour.com jamesone@pierrelacour.com amandat@pierrelacour.com GRAF ACQUISITION: Berger Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Berger, as Trustee for the Paul Berger Revocable Trust, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. GRAF ACQUISITION LLC, OWL CREEK ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P., JAMES A. GRAF, MICHAEL DEE, KEVIN STARKE, SABRINA MCKEE, KEITH ABELL, and JULIE LEVENSON, (), is brought on behalf of current and former stockholders of Graf Industrial Corp. ("Graf Industrial" or the "Company"), brings this Verified Class Action Complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims stemming from Graf Industrial's merger (the "Transaction") with Velodyne Lidar Inc. ("Legacy Velodyne") to form Velodyne Lidar Inc. ("New Velodyne") against: (a) Graf Acquisition LLC ("Sponsor"), Owl Creek Asset Management, L.P., James A. Graf, and Michael Dee (collectively, the "Controller Defendants") in their capacities as controlling stockholders of Graf Industrial; (b) Dee, Kevin Starke ("Starke"), Sabrina McKee, Keith Abell, and Julie Levenson (collectively, the "Board" or the "Director Defendants") in their capacities as members of Graf Industrial's board of directors; and (c) Graf and Dee in their capacities as Graf Industrial's officers (the "Officer Defendants") and unjust enrichment of the Controller Defendants and the Director Defendants as a result of the Transaction. Special purpose acquisition companies ("SPACs") have become increasingly popular as a mechanism for public companies to go public via a reverse merger rather than a traditional initial public offering ("IPO"). James Graf, a serial SPAC founder, launched Graf Industrial on June 26, 2018, with the prototypical SPAC structure and all of the familiar features that make SPAC transactions unfair to the SPAC's public stockholders. The Sponsor, controlled by Graf, Dee, and Owl Creek, (a) purchased 8,625,000 founder shares for a nominal price of $25,000 (the "Founder Shares"), (b) appointed Dee, Starke, McKee, Abell, and Levenson to the Board, and (iii) gifted purportedly independent directors McKee, Abell, and Levenson with Founder Shares in exchange for serving on the Company's Board. According to its charter, Graf Industrial originally had 18 months following its IPO to identify an acquisition target and undergo a business combination. It failed to do so. As a result, the Company sought and received stockholder approval on April 16, 2020 to extend the deadline an additional three months to July 31, 2020 (the "First Extension"), which resulted in the redemption of nearly 13 million shares, reducing the pot of available funds in trust to be rolled into a business combination by $132.1 million. The First Extension was still not enough time for Graf Industrial to find a suitable target. The Controller Defendants, however, refused to allow their SPAC to fail. Running up against the new July 31, 2020 deadline, the Controller Defendants twice more extended the business combination deadline and hastily orchestrated an ill-fated match with Legacy Velodyne before the Company would be forced to dissolve and liquidate. On June 26, 2020, Graf Industrial noticed a meeting to seek stockholder approval to extend the deadline for completing a business combination to September 30, 2020. This notice was superseded by a second notice sent on July 8 to extend the deadline again to October 31, 2020 so that the Company would have enough time to complete and close the Transaction (the "Second Extension"). The Second Extension was approved by Company stockholders on July 23, 2020. Because minimizing redemptions was important for fulfilling key terms of the merger agreement, Defendants pushed through a value-destroying Transaction based on false and misleading disclosures designed to induce the Company's public stockholders to invest in the Transaction rather than redeem their shares for $10.00 per share plus interest. Specifically, the Definitive Proxy Statement filed by Graf Industrial on September 14, 2020 (the "Proxy") withheld critical information from the Company's public stockholders concerning the high degree of dilution of Graf Industrial's shares that would occur in connection with the Transaction. Likewise, the Company proffered inflated projections about Legacy Velodyne to convince Graf Industrial's public stockholders to invest their shares in the post-merger company rather than redeem. Yet once Defendants' investments were secured by the Transaction and they received their windfalls, New Velodyne's house of cards collapsed to the detriment of public stockholders. Within months of the Transaction closing, New Velodyne dramatically missed its revenue projections and was forced to entirely withdraw the guidance that had convinced stockholders to invest rather than redeem their shares. Less than a year after the Transaction closed, New Velodyne's stock was trading far below $10 per share. It never recovered, trading at around $1 per share when the Company merged with Ouster in February 2023. Because of the conflicts of interests affecting all Defendants in connection with this Transaction, entire fairness review applies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, as the Trustee for the Paul Berger Revocable Trust, was the beneficial owner of Graf Industrial shares from November 5, 2019 through the close of the Transaction. Graf Acquisition (previously defined as the "Sponsor") is a Delaware limited liability company, owned by Graf, Dee, Owl Creek, and certain other unidentified investors with longstanding relationships with Graf.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 499-3600 Email: kim@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. Amanda Crawford, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 GREAT STAR: Courts OKs Certification of Proposed Class & Subclass ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE GAIR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GREAT STAR TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00976-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order concluding that certification of the proposed class and subclass is appropriate. Consequently, Gair's motion for class certification will be granted. The case involves approximately [four] hundred claimants with relatively low dollar-value claims. Declining to certify the class may result in a flood of litigation or, perhaps more likely, many of the claims not being brought. In 2020, Shop-Vac laid off most of its staff, allegedly without providing adequate legal notice. Candice Gair seeks to certify a class that would include those former employees. Great Star opposes certification on the ground that many of the proposed class members may be subject to arbitration agreements that would prohibit those members from bringing this action and, because Gair is not subject to such a defense, she cannot adequately represent those class members. Great Star is a manufacturer of hand tools serving DIY, professional, and industrial markets worldwide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46oKnHV at no extra charge.[CC] GREAT STAR: Gair Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE GAIR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GREAT STAR TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00976-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order: 1. Granting Gair's Motion for Class Certification; 2. Certifying class action in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following class of plaintiffs: "All persons who: (i) worked at or reported to Shop Vac's Facility in Williamsport, Pennsylvania; (ii) were terminated from employment on or about September 15, 2020, and within 90 days of that date, or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Shop Vac on or about September 15, 2020; (iii) are "affected employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(5); and (iv) have not filed a timely request to opt-out of the class." 3. Certifying a subclass composed of the following individuals: Members of the class who, after September 15, 2020, were employed by Great Star Tools USA, Inc., or one of its subsidiaries, and as part of their hiring and/or employment, signed a Company Dispute Resolution Policy form or similar form purporting to evidence an arbitration agreement. 4. Certifying Plaintiff Candice Gair as class representative; 5. Adding Rachael Berry as a named plaintiff in this matter and certifying her as a representative of the subclass; and 6. Appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP to serve as class counsel. GreatStar is a manufacturer of hand tools serving DIY, professional, and industrial markets worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RuQQwV at no extra charge.[CC] GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenlane Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Greenlane Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00989-JLS (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.gnln.com/-- is a holding company. The Company provides a global platform for the development and distribution of cannabis accessories, vape devices, and lifestyle products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GULF SHORES, AL: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Impact Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Kates, writing for AL.com, reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging that the city of Gulf Shores was improperly charging property developers and misspending impact fees in the city. Both the plaintiffs and defendants in Wymer v. Gulf Shores filed a motion in Baldwin County Circuit Court for approval of the settlement and class. The court will now conditionally certify the class, according to Kris Anderson, of Yates Anderson, an attorney for the plaintiffs. Notice of the lawsuit will then be published in a newspaper for 30 days and members of the class will have the opportunity to object or opt out. Members of the class are defined as "All persons who were charged an impact fee on new development by the City of Gulf Shores, Alabama pursuant to Ordinance No. 1480 since May 14, 2007 and Ordinance No. 1538 since March 23, 2009." No money is being returned to plaintiffs at this point. The lawsuit will change how impact fees are collected in Gulf Shores, which was the seventh fastest-growing city in Alabama in 2022. Under Alabama law, impact fees are to be capped at 1% of the assessed market value of the completed development, including the value of the land. The fees are also only to be used for public improvements needed to accommodate a new development. Residents of Baldwin County frequently complain about the rapid pace of development in their areas and the lack of infrastructure to keep up. Impact fees are intended to be used to aid in improving infrastructure. [GN] GUNTERSVILLE BREATHABLES: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guntersville Breathables, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Guntersville Breathables, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08326-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Guntersville Breathables, Inc. operates as a wholesales and distributes apparel products. The Company offers jackets, ponchos, snow shells, pants, hats, umbrella, and kid's suits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com HEALTH ENROLLMENT: Court Denies Ketayi Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC KETAYI et al., v. HEALTH ENROLLMENT GROUP et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01198-RSH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order: 1. Denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 2. Denying as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Stephen Shore; and 3. Denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike. The Court also denies as moot Defendant HPI and HII's motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Stephen Shore and motion to strike, because the Court need not address these motions in deciding Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs assert six claims for: (1) fraud and deceit pursuant to California Civil Code section 1709; (2) aiding and abetting fraud; (3) conspiracy to commit fraud; (4) violation of California Insurance Code section 781; (5) civil violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); and (6) conspiracy to commit civil RICO violations. The Plaintiffs' two RICO claims are predicated on alleged mail and wire fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343. The Plaintiffs move to certify a "Nationwide RICO Class" and a "Nationwide RICO Medical Expense Sub-Class" for the RICO claims in Count V and Count VI of the Operative Complaint. The proposed Nationwide RICO Class comprises: "All persons within the United States who were sold a Liberty or Legion plan from 2016 to 2020." The proposed "Nationwide RICO Medical Expense Sub-Class" comprises: "All persons within the United States who were sold a Liberty or Legion plan from 2016 to 2020, and who submitted claims that were accepted for payment, and whose remaining medical bills after payment pursuant to the Plans exceeded the ACA’s maximum out of pocket payment amount." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46u8Zzf at no extra charge.[CC] HERC RENTALS: Barry Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Edward J. Barry, individually and on behalf of himself and persons similarly situated v. HERC RENTALS INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 23-2-09008-5 was removed from the Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Sept. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05843. On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff Edward J. Barry caused to be filed a new Class Action Complaint for Damages. In Plaintiff's Complaint, he seeks to represent all individuals employed by Herc Rentals at "any time on or after August 17, 2020; were compensated at an annual rate of less than $101,390 in 2021, less than $107,301.04 in 2022, and/or less than $116,593.18 in 2023; and executed noncompete agreements relating to their employment."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Pizl, Esq. Justin O. Abbasi, Esq. ENTENTE LAW PLLC 315 39th Avenue SW, Suite 14 Puyallup, WA 98373-3690 Phone: (253) 446-7668 Facsimile: (253) 251-1276 Email: jim@ententelaw.com justin@ententelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com HOME BOX OFFICE: Ward Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Paul Ward, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., a foreign corporation; COOLER WATERS PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV11666 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07838. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay All Premium Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due and Owing on Separation; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam Levin, Esq. Stephen A. Rossi, Esq. Genevieve L. Javidzad, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120 Phone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100a Email: xl@msk.com sar@msk.com glj@msk.com HOUSING AUTHORITY: Bloch Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Housing Authority of Indiana County. The case is styled as Sara Bloch, Mary Cease, and those individuals similarly situated v. Housing Authority of Indiana County; Marcia Fudge, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Case No. 2:23-cv-01660-NR (W.D. Pa., Sept. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Housing Authority Of Indiana County -- Housing authority in Indiana, Pennsylvania -- is a housing authority in Indiana, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Judith Cassel, Esq. HAWKE MCKEON & SNISCAK 100 N. Tenth Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 236-1300 Email: jdcassel@hmslegal.com HUB INTERNATIONAL: Ellis Sues Over Inadequately Protected Systems ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shannan Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUB INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Case No. 1:23-cv-06137 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 25, 2023), is brought stemming from a massive and preventable data breach spanning from December 2022 through January 2023 in which cybercriminals infiltrated HUB's inadequately protected network systems and accessed the highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") of approximately 479,261 individuals (the "Data Breach" or Breach"). According to HUB the Data Breach began in or around December 2022, but was not discovered by HUB until January 17, 2023. After an investigation, HUB determined that the types of PII accessed and copied by cybercriminals during the Data Breach included, inter alia, names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, and financial account information. On August 11, 2023--7 months after the unauthorized party first gained access to Plaintiff and the Class's PII--victims of the Data Breach were finally notified via letter that their highly sensitive and confidential PII was exposed ("Notice of Data Breach Letter"). The Notice of Data Breach Letter obscured the nature of the breach and the threat it posed--failing to notify Plaintiff and the Class how many people were impacted, how the Breach happened, or why it took so long to begin notifying victims that hackers had gained access to highly sensitive PII. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's PII, failing to adequately notify them of the Breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and federal laws and harmed Plaintiff and the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. HUB is an insurance brokerage company based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405-235-1560 Fax: 405-239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com HYATT CORP: Ordono Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyatt Corp. The case is styled as John Ordono, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hyatt Corp. d/b/a Hyatt Regency San Francisco, Case No. CGC23609208 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 20, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Hyatt Hotels Corporation -- http://www.hyatt.com/-- commonly known as Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, is an American multinational hospitality company headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Email: info@llrlaw.com IT WORKS MARKETING: Perez Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marites Perez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IT WORKS MARKETING, INC.; Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 23CV038881 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04829. The complaint alleges ten causes of action including: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to timely pay all wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks; unlawful deduction of wages; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements; failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment; violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq. Melissa A. Huether, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com mhuether@fisherphillips.com JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Erickson Bid for Class Certification OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN R. ERICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered an order adopting the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker dated June 12, 2023, addressing Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Based on the R&R, the court grants the motion to certify the class. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 76. Finally, the Court disagrees with Defendants' assertion that Plaintiff has failed to advance a methodology for calculating such damages on a classwide basis. The Plaintiff moves for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The proposed class consists of: "All shareholders who held Jernigan common stock as of September 11, 2020 -- the record date for eligibility to vote on the Transaction -- and who ultimately sold their shares for $17.30 each upon close of the Transaction." Excluded from the proposed class are Defendants, namely Jernigan's officers and directors, along with their immediate family members and legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Plaintiff John Erickson brings this putative class action against Defendants Jernigan Capital, Inc., Mark Decker, James Dondero, Howard Silver, Harry Thie, and Rebecca Owen, alleging various violations of federal securities law. The R&R recommends that Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted. Id. Defendants have filed objections to the R&R, which Plaintiff opposes Jernigan Capital was a public Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) specializing in self-storage real-estate properties that traded on the New York Stock Exchange A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RHg4bg at no extra charge.[CC] JKS VENTURES: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JKS Ventures, Inc. The case is styled as Allison Michele Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JKS Ventures, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08311 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JKS Ventures -- https://jksventures.com/ -- provides a recycling service center that provides construction waste management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com JOHNS HOPKINS: Ebneshahidi Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Ebneshahidi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY and THE JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-02539-GLR (D. Md., Sept. 18, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated personal data from Defendants' data network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly-sensitive consumer of Plaintiff, and at least 300,000 Class Members ("Data Breach"). According to Defendants, information compromised in the Data Breach includes personally identifying information and financial information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") such as demographic information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and health billing records (collectively, "PII" and "PHI" is "Private Information"). The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information that Defendants collected and maintained. Specifically, Defendants used Progress Software Corporation's MOVEit software to transfer the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, and this Private Information was compromised as a result of a security vulnerability on Defendants own server that hosted the MOVEit data. The Defendants maintained the Private Information in a negligent and/or reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendants' computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendants, and thus Defendants were on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private Information from those risks left that Private Information in a vulnerable condition. In addition, Defendants and their employees failed to properly monitor the computer network and IT systems that housed the Private Information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of their Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, resident, and citizen of the State of Maryland, residing in Baltimore County. The Defendants are a research university, teaching hospital, and affiliated healthcare system based in Baltimore, aiming to "improve the health of our community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in patient care."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. One South Street, Suite 2600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410.752.6030 Email: julwick@kg-law.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Amanda V. Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: 202.540.7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 646.357.1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Audelo Files Suit in N.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al. The case is styled as Steve Audelo, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Procter & Gamble, Case No. 3:23-cv-24250-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fl., Sept. 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer packaged goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Frederick Aylstock, Esq. R. Jason Richards, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ - PENSACOLA FL 17 E Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 916-7450 Fax: (850) 916-7449 Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com jrichards@awkolaw.com JORDAN CRAIG: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jordan Craig Design, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jordan Craig Design, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08149-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jordan Craig -- https://jordancraig.com/ -- is a Retail Apparel and Fashion, Textiles & Apparel, and Premium Denim.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com JUUL LABS: Education Board Joins Vaping Ads Suit in Kansas ---------------------------------------------------------- The Gardner News reports that the Gardner Edgerton Board of Education is joining a class-action lawsuit for vaping ads targeting youth on social media. Board officials decided to join the suit at the Sept. 18 monthly board meeting. Superintendent Dr. Brian Huff said the lawsuit was similar to a previous class-action lawsuit several Johnson County school districts participated in against Juul tobacco and vaping products. School district attorney Greg Goheen with MVP Law Goheen said Huff was correct in the similar natures of the lawsuits where Juul was sued for targeting teenagers and preteens with vaping ads.[GN] JWS ACQUISITIONS: Moonsawmy Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JWS Acquisitions, LLC. The case is styled as Nirmala Moonsawmy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JWS Acquisitions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04198-LMM (N.D. Ga., Sept. 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. JWS Acquisitions -- https://jwsacquisitions.com/ -- is a local real estate investment company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 726-8444 Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com - and - Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN LLC 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (678) 449-0365 Email: rachel@beal.law K9 BALLISTICS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against K9 Ballistics, Inc. The case is styled as Allison Michele Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. K9 Ballistics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08312 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. K9 Ballistics -- https://k9ballistics.com/ -- is a manufacturing company that sells pet accessories online including tough dog beds, crate beds, and orthopedic dog beds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com KUSHKARDS LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kushkards, LLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Kushkards, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00995-JLS (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KushKards -- https://www.kushkards.com/ -- offers colorful greeting cards for the cannabis enthusiast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal - and - Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP 122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620 New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal KYO-YA OHANA: Tan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kyo-Ya Ohana, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mei Hua Tan, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Kyo-Ya Ohana, LLC, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23609089 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 14, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Kyo-ya Hotels & Resorts, LP -- https://www.kyoyahotelsandresorts.com/ -- is the steward of six hotel properties in Hawaii and California, many of which are historical treasures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas James Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-952-0354 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com LEARNING WHEEL: Bell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Monay Bell, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. LEARNING WHEEL CHILDCARE CORP. d/b/a LEARNING WHEEL CHILDCARE, and PARK PLACE DAY CARE INC. d/b/a PARK PLACE DAY CARE, and DVORA INC. d/b/a BUILDING BLOCKS LAND, and BARBREY PREP INC. d/b/a BARBREY PREP, and ALENUSHKA CHILDCARE INC. d/b/a ALENUSHKA CHILDCARE, and IRINA GUTKINA, individually, and YELENA KUZNETSOVA, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-06879 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"), the NYLL's requirement that employers pay wages to their employees who perform manual labor not less frequently than on a weekly basis. The Defendants have willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to her under the FLSA and the NYLL, as well as all of her regular wages due under the NYLL. Specifically, throughout her employment, Defendants have paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis and have routinely required Plaintiff to work past the end of her regularly scheduled shift, which often requires Plaintiff to work more than forty hours in a workweek, but Defendants have failed to compensate Plaintiff for those unscheduled hours at any rate of pay. Therefore, Defendants have failed to compensate Plaintiff for all of her hours worked in a week up to forty at her regular rate of pay, and for all of her hours worked in a week over forty at the rate of one- and one-half times her regular rate. The Defendants have further violated the NYLL by failing to pay Plaintiff, a manual worker, on at least as frequently as a weekly basis, paying her on a bi-weekly basis instead. The Defendants have also violated the NYLL by failing to furnish Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement on each payday or with any wage notice at the time of her hire, let alone an accurate notice, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a Group Teacher at one of Defendants' locations from September 8, 2022, to the present. The Defendants are five New York corporations that operate as a single integrated enterprise to run at least five daycares in Brooklyn, New York, as well as the enterprise's two owners and day-to-day overseers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tenzin Tashi, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. MICHAEL J. BORRELLI, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 LILLY GIRL INC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lilly Girl, Inc. The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lilly Girl, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08179 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lilly Girl Inc. doing business as Girlie Girl Originals -- https://www.girliegirloriginals.com/ -- combines trendy taglines, fresh graphics, and fun colors to create a huge selection of one-of-a-kind t-shirts and womens accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com LINGUA FRANCA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lingua Franca Nyc, Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lingua Franca Nyc, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06873 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lingua Franca -- https://linguafranca.nyc/ -- is a clothing and accessory company that provides handmade embroidery sweaters, etc. Nyack, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com LITTLE BIRD: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Little Bird Boutique, LLC. The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. A Little Bird Boutique, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08147 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A Little Bird Boutique -- https://www.alittlebirdboutique.com/ -- is your new favorite spot for affordable Southern style.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Ocean S. Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Angeles County, et al. The case is styled as Ocean S., Jackson K., Rosie S., Erykah B., Junior R., Onyx G., by and through their next friend Craig Schultz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Brandon Nichols, Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Los Angeles Department of Mental Health Lisa Wong, Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health California Department of Health Care Services Mark Ghaly, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency California Department of Social Services Kim Johnson, Director of the California Department of Social Services; Michelle Baass; Case No. 2:23-cv-06921-JAK-E (C.D. Cal., Aug. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Los Angeles County -- https://lacounty.gov/ -- officially the County of Los Angeles, and sometimes abbreviated as L.A. County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grant A. Davis-Denny, Esq. James Patrick Biblarz, Esq. Peter E. Gratzinger, Esq. William D. Temko, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES AND OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Phone: (213) 683-9100 Fax: (213) 687-3702 Email: grant.davis-denny@mto.com jimmy.biblarz@mto.com peter.gratzinger@mto.com William.Temko@mto.com - and - Alero Egbe, Esq. Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage, Esq. Amelia Piazza, Esq. Kathryn Ann Eidmann, Esq. Molly Elena Mauck, Esq. Natalie Marie Garnica, Esq. Rachel L. Stein, Esq. Tara Chantelle Ford, Esq. 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Phone: (213) 385-2977 Fax: (213) 385-9089 Email: aegbe@publiccounsel.org asavage@publiccounsel.org apiazza@publiccounsel.org keidmann@publiccounsel.org mmauck@publiccounsel.org ngarnica@publiccounsel.org rstein@publiccounsel.org tford@publiccounsel.org - and - Jessica Zou, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 88 Pine Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (732) 710-9163 Fax: (212) 683-4015 Email: jzou@childrensrights.org - and - Leecia Welch, Esq. Sarah Melissa Manimalethu, Esq. ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 333 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 368-0010 Email: lwelch@childrensrights.org smanimalethu@alliancecr.org LUCY IN THE SKY: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucy In The Sky, Inc. The case is styled as Lashawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lucy In The Sky, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08170 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lucy in the Sky -- https://www.lucyinthesky.com/ -- is an online fashion store. Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com MACY'S INC: Agrees to Settle CVC Sheets False Ads Suit for $10.5-M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Macy's agreed to pay $10.5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming CVC Sheets were falsely advertised with an inflated thread count. Proof of purchase may not be required for class members to benefit from the settlement. The settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more CVC Sheets supplied by AQ Textiles LLC from a Macy's store between Nov. 8, 2013, and March 24, 2023. The Macy's class action lawsuit claims CVC Sheets were labeled with an inflated thread count. This alleged false advertising caused consumers to overpay for the sheet sets, the plaintiffs contend. Macy's is a national retailer. The department store sells CVC Sheets supplied by AQ Textiles. Macy's hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $10.5 million settlement to resolve the CVC Sheets false advertising class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of CVC Sheets they purchased from Macy's. Claimants who provide proof of purchase or whose purchases can be verified by Macy's records can receive up to $7.50 per unit of CVC Sheets purchased. Claimants without proof of purchase can receive up to $2.50 per household, regardless of the number of sheets they purchased. If the number of claims exceeds the net settlement fund, payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 20, 2023. Claimants who provide proof of purchase or whose purchases can be verified by Macy's records can receive up to $7.50 per unit of CVC Sheets purchased. Claimants without proof of purchase can receive up to $2.50 per household, regardless of the number of sheets they purchased. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased one or more CVC Sheets supplied by AQ Textiles LLC from a Macy's store between Nov. 8, 2013 and March 24, 2023 Potential Award Up to $7.50 per unit of CVC sheets Proof of Purchase Receipts or other proof of purchase. Claim Form https://www.cvcsheetsettlement.com/submit-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 180 calendar days after the effective date Case Name Hawes v. Macy's West Stores Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00754, and Chiaraluce, et al. v. Macy's Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00081, both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Final Hearing 10/20/2023 Settlement Website CVCSheetSettlement.com Claims Administrator CVC Sheets Claims Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 info@CVCSheetSettlement.com 844-483-0488 Class Counsel Michael McShane AUDET & PARTNERS LLP Charles Schaffer LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP Charles LaDuca CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP Defense Counsel Jennifer K Van Zant Andrew L Rodenbough BROOKS PIERCE McLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP Beth A Bryan TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP [GN] MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI ---------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 527063/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Sept. 18, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI") stored within Defendant's information network. The Defendant knew or should have known, that Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PHI. On March 18, 2023, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of PHI, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI. The total number of individuals who have had their data exposed due to Defendant's failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is approximately 33,000. Personal health information ("PHI") is a category of information that refers to an individual's medical records and history, which is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), which may include test results, procedure descriptions, diagnoses, personal or family medical histories and data points applied to a set of demographic information for a particular patient. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a patient of Defendant's, and their information was stored with Defendant as a result of their dealings with Defendant. The Defendant is a hospital serving Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave, 4th Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 212-643-0500 Email: cmoore@reesellp.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com MANUEL CARVALHO: Barzaga Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Overtime Work ----------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Barzaga, Jorge Ayala, and Elier Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MANUEL CARVALHO, HECTOR CARVALHO, NELSON MARCUS, ROY CARVALHO, CARVALHO ENTERPRISES, INC., CARVALHO & CARVALHO LLC, CARVALHO & SON INC., and CHURRASQUEIRA BAIRRADA RESTAURANT, Case No. 2:23-cv-06944 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023), is brought under Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") from the Defendants: unpaid wages for overtime work performed, unpaid spread of hours wages for each day Plaintiffs worked ten or more hours, liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiff a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements associated with this action. The Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours a week. During the work-week the Plaintiffs were not paid minimum wage, an overtime premium or spread of hour pay. While Plaintiffs and Collective and Class plaintiffs, worked in excess of forty hours a week, Defendants willfully failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cleaners, maintenances, busboys, and food preparers. The Defendants are a Portuguese restaurant located in Mineola, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Phone: (516) 280.4600 Facsimile: (516) 280.4530 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com MARGARET MARY: Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jane Doe, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARGARET MARY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a MARGARET MARY HEALTH, Case No. 49D01-2308-PL-031254 was removed from the Indiana Commercial Court, Marion County, State of Indiana, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Sept. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01655-JRS-KMB. The underlying factual basis for Doe's Complaint is that MMCH allegedly violated Indiana law by embedding a third-party source code called the Meta Pixel—onto MMCH's publicly available websites, referred to in the Complaint as the "Website" and "Online Platforms." Doe further alleges that MMCH violated Indiana law by installing other tracking technology—such as Google Analytics with the Google Tag Manager, Facebook Events, Hotjar, Bizographics, and Microsoft Universal Event Tracking—on its website. Based on these facts, Doe's Complaint contains seven counts against MMCH under Indiana law: common law claims for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff's final claim is brought under Indiana law for an alleged violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq. Tyler J. Moorhead, Esq. BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 684-5000 Facsimile: (317) 684-5173 pzimmerly@boselaw.com tmoorhead@boselaw.com - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. Jonathan S. Maddalone, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Ste. 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Facsimile: (303) 861-7805 Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com jmaddalone@bakerlaw.com - and - Lisa A. Houssiere, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 811 Main Street, Ste. 1100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 751-1600 Facsimile: (713) 751-1717 Email: lhoussiere@bakerlaw.com - and - D. Colby Orton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44106-1214 Phone: (216) 621-0200 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 Email: dorton@bakerlaw.com MARYFIELD CLEANERS: Jeon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Han Jeon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARYFIELD CLEANERS & LAUNDRY, YOUNG KYU LEE a/k/a YOUNG "JUNE" LEE, and PHILIP LEE, Case 1:23-cv-06808 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2023), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), and for violations of the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including spread-of-hours, and applicable liquidated damages, interests, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for all hours worked either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premiums. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage, overtime compensation, and spread-of-hours, required by federal and state laws, rules, and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a tailor at the drycleaning business. The Defendants own, operate, or control, or owned, operated, or controlled, a drycleaning business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Younghoon Ji, Esq. AHNE & JI, LLP 45 East 34th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 594-1035 Email: yji@ahnejillp.com MASTERBRAND CABINETS: Aguirre Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Yesenia Aguirre, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MASTERBRAND CABINETS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2316382 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07710. The Complaint asserts the following seven causes of action for violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code: "Failure To Pay Wages For All Hours Worked At Minimum Wage In Violation Of Labor Code"; "Failure To Pay Overtime Wages For Daily Overtime Worked In Violation Of Labor Code"; "Failure To Authorize Or Permit Meal Periods In Violation Of Labor Code Sections"; "Failure To Authorize Or Permit Rest Periods In Violation Of Labor Code"; "Failure To Pay Wages For Accrued Paid Sick Days At The Regular Rate Of Pay In Violation Of Labor Code"; (6) "Failure To Provide Complete And Accurate Wage Statements In Violation Of Labor Code"; and "Unfair Business Practices, In Violation Of Business And Professions Code."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com rparvaresh@seyfarth.com NORTH CENTRAL: Faces Class Suit Over COVID Remote Learning Shift ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal judge won't let North Central College dismiss a lawsuit from students who allege the school violated its contract by shifting to remote classes during the onset of the Covid pandemic in the spring of 2020. U.S. District Judge John Kness issued an opinion Sept. 18 in Chicago preserving the claims of Alena Troia, who filed a December 2020 lawsuit seeking to represent a class of students at the Naperville school under allegations it breached a duty to provide in-person, on-campus instruction in exchange for tuition. The ruling follows a series of decisions in favor of students making similar claims against schools like Northwestern, McKendree and Loyola universities and the Illinois Institute of Technology. Troia alleged undergraduates paid about $19,930 in tuition and $100 in mandatory student fees in the 2019-2020 academic year. According to Kness, Troia's allegations are rooted in North Central's website, marketing materials, admission letters, course catalogs and traditional operations. She alleged North Central should not have retained full tuition and fees when offering only "materially different" online classes, which have a "diminished value" relative to conventional offerings. In arguing for dismissal, North Central said Troia's claim amount to allegations of educational malpractice, which doesn't have a basis in state law, and also that she failed to allege "the existence of an enforceable implied or express contract," according to Kness. It also said pursuit of an alternative claim, unjust enrichment, is inappropriate because if there is a contract, that claim cannot survive. "In the wake of the pandemic, courts across the country have grappled with claims similar to those presented in this case," Kness wrote. "Judges in this district have uniformly rejected such claims." But in July 2022, a split panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling of U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman, who in 2021 dismissed student claims against Loyola University of Chicago. "Contrary to the students' position, these sources do not constitute an express contract for Loyola to provide in-person educational services," Seventh Circuit Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi wrote for the majority. "But we agree with the students that, taken as a whole, these sources are sufficient to show an implied contract to provide in-person instruction and access to Loyola's campus in exchange for tuition and certain mandatory fees." Kness rejected North Central's argument concerning educational malpractice, noting Troia didn't primarily challenge the quality of her remote education, but said making that the only option violated a contractual obligation to in-person classes. He explained Troia's complaint echoes that of the Loyola students in alleging the existence of an implied contract. In addition to promotional materials touting "state-of-the-art facilities updated with the latest technology and design," Troia also pointed to course catalog and registration materials delineating between in-person and online classes, which signals the school understands a distinction exists. Kness noted Troia went further than the Loyola students by incorporating the text of her acceptance letter into her lawsuit. According to Kness, the Loyola appellate ruling "explained plaintiffs made a pleading error where they erroneously incorporated by reference allegations of the existence of a contract between the parties. But for that error, however, the plaintiffs would have sufficiently pleaded an unjust enrichment claim in the alternative." Because the unjust enrichment claim does not make any reference to Troia's breach of contract claim, only the underlying factual allegations, and because the parties dispute whether the school made any implied promises, Kness said, dismissal is improper. Troia has been represented by attorneys Katrina Carroll, Kyle A. Shamberg, Kathleen Lally and Nicholas R. Lange, of Carlson Lynch, of Chicago. North Central College has been represented by attorneys Monica H. Khetarpal, Kirsten A. Milton and Julia S. Wolf, of Jackson Lewis P.C., of Chicago. [GN] OPENAI INC: Authors File Copyright Infringement Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP on Sept. 20 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of prominent authors including David Baldacci, Mary Bly, Michael Connelly, Sylvia Day, Jonathan Franzen, John Grisham, Elin Hilderbrand, Christina Baker Kline, Maya Shanbhag Lang, Victor LaValle, George R.R. Martin, Jodi Picoult, Douglas Preston, Roxana Robinson, George Saunders, Scott Turow, and Rachel Vail, as well as The Authors Guild itself, against OpenAI seeking redress under the Copyright Act for OpenAI's flagrant and harmful infringements of Plaintiffs' registered copyrights in written works of fiction. The class action lawsuit alleges that OpenAI copied the plaintiffs' works wholesale, without permission or consideration, then fed the plaintiffs' copyrighted works into their 'large language models' or 'LLMs,' algorithmic systems designed to output human-seeming text responses to users' prompts and queries. The suit includes claims for direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. Section 501 as well as vicarious and contributory copyright infringement, and injunctive relief in the form of a fair licensing regime as well as statutory and other damages. "Without plaintiffs' and the proposed class' copyrighted works, Defendants would have a vastly different commercial product," noted Lieff Cabraser partner Rachel Geman, Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class. "Defendants' decision to copy authors' works, done without offering any choices or any compensation, threatens the role and livelihood of writers as a whole." Scott Sholder, Cowan, DeBaets partner and Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, added, "Plaintiffs don't object to the development of generative AI, but the defendants had no right to develop their AI technologies with unpermitted use of the authors' copyrighted works. Defendants could have 'trained' their large language models on works in the public domain or paid a reasonable licensing fee to use copyrighted works." About Lieff Cabraser Among the largest law firms in the U.S. representing only plaintiffs, Lieff Cabraser continues its 50+ year commitment to corporate accountability; promoting fair competition and equitable business practices; safeguarding product safety; protecting our environment; securing justice for consumers, employees, patients, investors, and business owners; ensuring our rights to privacy; and upholding the civil rights of citizens worldwide. Learn more at lieffcabraser.com. About Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP For more than three decades, Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP has provided legal counsel to leading media, art, technology, and entertainment clients, from individual creators, to corporations, associations, and non-profit organizations. See cdas.com for more information. [GN] PURFOODS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Mom's Meals Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that the company behind Mom's Meals faces a proposed class action over a data breach that reportedly occurred between January 16 and February 22, 2023. The 57-page case against PurFoods LLC says that although the meal delivery service has a legal obligation to keep consumers' private data secure from unauthorized access, the company negligently failed to maintain adequate cybersecurity measures, resulting in the exposure of the personal information of 1,237,681 individuals. According to the filing, Mom's Meals works with health plans, managed care organizations, governments and other agencies to deliver ready-to-eat entrees to individuals with Medicare and Medicaid. Data compromised in the cyberattack included consumers' names, financial account and payment card information, medical record numbers, health and treatment information, diagnosis codes, meal categories and cost, health insurance information and patient ID numbers, the lawsuit claims. Mom's Meals' online notice adds that the incident may have exposed consumers' dates of birth, driver's license or state identification numbers, Medicare and/or Medicaid identification, and, supposedly in less than one percent of cases, Social Security numbers. The complaint explains that the breach impacted customers who've received Mom's Meals packages, including Medicare, Medicaid and self-paying members without an eligible health plan or who do not qualify for government assistance. The incident also involved data belonging to current and former employees and independent contractors, the suit notes. "As a result of PurFoods's inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was accessed by third-party ransomware attackers who have the intent to take that data and to sell it on the dark web, among other things," the suit says, stressing that data breach victims now face an "imminent and ongoing" risk of identity theft and fraud. The case further alleges that the company has been neither "forthcoming nor expedient" in its notification of victims, who remained unaware that their private data had been exposed for over seven months after Mom's Meals' network was accessed and over six months after the company says it became aware of "suspicious account behavior" on February 22. PurFoods' August 25 notice letter states that it immediately launched an investigation that didn't conclude until July 10. "Despite the fact that PurFoods allegedly conducted a five-month investigation, it has not revealed most of the findings of the investigation it commissioned," the complaint says. Per the filing, the company's letter fails to inform victims when or how the unauthorized actor first gained access to its systems, what specific information was impacted and whether the accessed data has been or will be misused by hackers. The filing also accuses Mom's Meals of "actively concealing or—at least—attempting to suppress" information related to the data breach. Citing an August 2023 TechCrunch article, the complaint alleges that PurFoods had included "noindex" code on its online notice of the incident, effectively preventing affected individuals from finding the webpage in their search engine results. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose private information was compromised in the Mom's Meals data breach by unauthorized persons, including anyone who was notified of the incident by PurFoods. [GN] RAD POWER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Power Bikes -------------------------------------------------------- Katherine McDaniel, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that Rad Power Bikes faces a class action lawsuit over problems with its e-bikes, seeking to hold the manufacturer responsible for design defects, which may cause front wheels to detach during use, and expose riders to a risk of injuries. The complaint (PDF) was filed by Gary E. Mason on September 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, indicating that the manufacturers, Rad Power Bikes, Inc. and Rad Power Bikes, LLC, continued to sell defective power bikes, despite knowing they presented a safety risk to riders. Mason, from Maryland, sustained five broken ribs and a broken clavicle in May 2021, when the front wheel of his RadRunner Electric Utility Bike detached when he activated the brakes. This caused him to be thrown over the handlebars, landing on his back. As a result of the e-bike accident, Mason was hospitalized for two days and spent six weeks in physical therapy, according to the lawsuit. Mason indicates in the complaint that the electric powered bikes can reach speeds of up to 20 miles per hour. However, all Rad bike models are equipped with disc brakes and quick release skewers that allow the rider to remove the wheel from the bike without a tool for easy transport. This can cause the bike to suddenly stop or cause the front wheel to fall off unexpectedly, potentially throwing the rider over the handlebars, the lawsuit alleges. The complaint calls the design of Rad Bikes defective, saying the disk brakes and quick release mechanism for the front wheel poses an unreasonable injury risk for consumers. Similar design problems resulted in a bike disc brake recall in 2015, which impacted more than a dozen different bike manufacturers, due to a risk that the front wheels may suddenly stop and separate, injuring the rider. While Rad E-bikes were not included in the 2015 recall, the company received reports of injuries similar to those reported from the recalled brakes, but continued to sell them to consumers without fixing the problem or providing adequate warnings, the lawsuit indicates. Mason also alleges that the front fork design of the bikes is defective, which, when combined with the heavy weight of the bikes, can cause the bike to fall apart while in motion and injure the rider. The complaint highlights numerous comments consumers left online about issues they experienced while using the power bikes. The comments involved stories of users falling off or crashing after the front skewers snapped, or after the wheel fell off while in motion. They also mention issues with the wheel quick release, which resulted in broken bones and other injuries. The lawsuit notes that the bikes are advertised as safe to transport children and offer passenger seat attachment accessories, despite the death of a 12-year-old girl, who lost control and crashed the bike after it started to shake. She died two weeks later, and her parents filed a wrongful death suit against the manufacturer last year. Mason's lawsuit seeks class action status for anyone nationwide who has purchased a Rad e-bike. The lawsuit presents claims of strict liability, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, strict product liability, and violations of consumer protection laws. [GN] RALPHS GROCERY: Class Cert. Deadline Continued to Jan. 19, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOSUKE HIRADATE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation; THE KROGER COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-03593-SSS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order granting third stipulation to continue class certification briefing and related case. -- The class certification motion deadline is continued to January 19, 2024, and all other new case deadlines are set forth in the Scheduling Order chart filed with this Order. -- All deadlines established by the prior Order Granting Second Stipulation to Continue Date for Class Certification Briefing and Related Case Schedule Deadlines are vacated. Ralphs operates a supermarket chain in California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RtpirM at no extra charge.[CC] RCDC RESEARCH: Extension to Conduct Class Cert. Discovery Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RCDC RESEARCH GROUP d/b/a DELTA TAX TEAM, Case No. 8:23-cv-00206-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his request for an extension of time to: 1) conduct class certification and damages discovery by 90 days from October 8, 2023; and 2) file Plaintiff's motions for class certification and default judgment by 120 days from October 8, 2023. The Court had set a deadline of July 21, 2023, by when Plaintiff must file any motions for class certification and default judgment. Since Defendant's agents have defied Plaintiff’s subpoenas, the Plaintiff has not been able to conduct meaningful class certification and damages discovery. This, unfortunately, directly impacts Plaintiff's ability to file motions for class certification and default judgment, as the information necessary for these motions can only be procured through discovery and the documents and information in possession of Mr. Chung and perhaps others identified in response to Plaintiff's subpoena. The Plaintiff has brought the instant class action with allegations that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant on February 2, 2023. The Plaintiff's complaint pleads two causes of action under the TCPA. The first cause of action is for violation of the TCPA's prohibition against making two or more solicitation calls in a 12-month period to telephone numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 30 days. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PQNl2q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Niv V. Davidovich, Esq. Elan N. Stone, Esq. Isaac Guzman, Esq. DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, CA 91606 Telephone: (818) 661-2420 Facsimile: (818) 301-5131 E-mail: niv@davidovichlaw.com elan@davidovichlaw.com isaac@davidovichlaw.com - and - Eric H. Weitz, Esq. Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Averts Florida FDCPA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Mike Gibb, writing for Accounts Recovery, reports that a District Court judge in Florida has granted a defendant's motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action case because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction after the plaintiff attempted a somewhat novel strategy to prove she had standing to pursue her case in federal court. The case is Suazo v. Resurgent Capital Services. The plaintiff received an email from a collector attempting to collect on a debt. The email included a copy of the validation notice, giving the plaintiff 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt or any portion thereof. Four months later, the plaintiff sent the agency a letter disputing the debt. The agency forwarded the letter to the defendant. The defendant responded to the plaintiff's letter by sending two letters of its own. The first letter included another validation notice but also informed the plaintiff that it had initiated a review of the inquiry received by the collection agency. The second letter provided the validation information that the plaintiff had requested. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the first letter sent by the defendant violated the FDCPA because in one part of the letter the plaintiff is led to believe that the account is already under review, and in another part of the letter, it says the plaintiff has 30 days to dispute the debt. Neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant or the collection agency made any attempt to contact each other after the defendant sent the two letters to the plaintiff. The crux of the plaintiff's argument why she had standing to sue was because she forfeited her validation rights, which bears a close relationship to the common law torts of misrepresentation and fraud. But, as Judge Jose E. Martinez of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida put it, " . . . Plaintiff provides no evidence whatsoever that her confusion led to her suffering any harm, tangible or intangible. Despite ample opportunity to do so, Plaintiff cannot point to any record evidence to show that she suffered anything other than conjectural or hypothetical injuries. Plaintiff does not even provide a single example of how she was injured beyond her confusion in her Counterstatement of Undisputed Material Facts filed in response to the Motion. And Plaintiff did not allege or argue that she made any payments towards the debt as a result of having received correspondence from Defendants, and she otherwise fails to allege or argue that she relied on Defendants' alleged misrepresentations." [GN] REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Settles Mislabeled Recycling Bags Suit for $3-M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Reynolds agreed to pay $3 million to resolve claims that it falsely represented its trash bags as "recycling" bags despite their inability to be recycled. No proof of purchase is required to benefit from the settlement. The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Hefty and/or Great Value brand recycling bags between July 20, 2018, and Aug. 30, 2023. According to plaintiffs in the case, Reynolds misled consumers to believe that its recycling trash bags were recyclable. Despite these claims, the "recycling" bags allegedly can not be recycled in waste disposal facilities. Reynolds Brands is a home care product company that sells aluminum foil, trash bags and other essentials. Reynolds hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3 million settlement to resolve the false advertising class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the recycling bags settlement, class members can receive $2 per purchased product. Without proof of purchase, class members can claim up to six products, for a maximum payment of $12. With proof of purchase, class members can claim up to 25 products, for a maximum payment of $50. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 25, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 15, 2023. In order to receive settlement payments, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 13, 2023. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased Hefty and/or Great Value brand recycling bags between July 20, 2018, and Aug. 30, 2023 Potential Award $50 with proof of purchase $12 without proof of purchase Proof of Purchase Proof of purchase evidence must include the identity of the retail store that issued the receipt, the date of the purchase, the price paid, the number of units purchased and the form of payment used. Claim Form https://recyclingbagsettlement.com/Home/SubmitClaim 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 12/13/2023 Case Name Gudgel, et al. v. Reynolds Consumer Products Inc., et al., Case No. 23LA00000486, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Lake County, Illinois Final Hearing 11/15/2023 Settlement Website RecyclingBagSettlement.com Claims Administrator Gudgel et al. v. Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. et al. c/o Claim Administrator P.O. Box 2197 Portland, OR 97208-2197 info@RecyclingBagSettlement.com 877-272-3437 Class Counsel Michael R Reese REESE LLP William Wright THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE PA Defense Counsel Kate T Spelman JENNER & BLOCK LLP [GN] RGV BOOT: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Mercedes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS MERCEDES, v. RGV BOOT JACK, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07970-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a general pretrial management order as follows: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Rgv is in the Western Apparel business. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PRpNKX at no extra charge.[CC] S&P GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 13, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, HILDENE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, and SWISS LIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. S&P GLOBAL, INC. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, and FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order. -- Any motion to amend or to join additional March 29, 2024 parties shall be filed by: -- Substantial completion of document Aug. 13, 2024 production in response to requests for production shall be accomplished no later than: -- Depositions of fact and class witnesses, March 14, 2025 including third parties, shall be completed by: -- The parties will meet and confer regarding Dec. 15, 2023 a stipulation to govern depositions, including a provision for remote depositions, by: -- All fact and class discovery shall be March 14, 2025 completed within: -- Absent good cause shown, motions to Feb. 14, 2025 compel fact discovery shall be filed by: -- Requests to admit shall be served by: April 14, 2025 -- The Plaintiffs' motion for June 13, 2025 class certification and supporting expert reports are due: -- The Defendants' deadline to depose July 24, 2025 Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Defendants' opposition to class Sept. 11, 2025 certification, including any motions to exclude expert testimony relating to class certification, and supporting expert reports are due: -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to depose Oct. 22, 2025 the Defendants' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Nov. 10, 2025 class certification, including any motions to exclude expert testimony relating to class certification: S &P is an American publicly traded corporation headquartered in Manhattan, New York City. Its primary areas of business are financial information and analytics. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46mO5BW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David H. Wollmuth, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY York 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 - and - Leiv Blad, Esq. COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 742-4300 - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 The Defendants are represented by: Eric Stock, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-3901 - and - David C. Kiernan, Esq. Alexander V. Maugeri, Esq. Amanda L. Dollinger, Esq. JONES DAY San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 - and - Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 350-2700 SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Rithm Sale --------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sculptor Capital Management Inc. (NYSE: SCU), relating to its proposed sale to Rithm Capital Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, Class A SCU shareholders are expected to receive $11.15 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sculptor-capital-management-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in SCU and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SOUTH32 LTD: Catholic Church Supports Coal Mine Dust Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Father Stan Muyebe, writing for Daily Maverick, reports that the Catholic Church believes that in the suffering of the poor working class, we encounter the suffering face of Christ. This has led us to work alongside the law firm Richard Spoor to bring a class action against coal mining giants South32, BHP Billiton and Seriti Power, to seek a legal remedy for sick mine workers and the families of workers who died of coal mine dust lung disease and associated illnesses. As far back as 1891, when Pope Leo XIII issued a document called Rerum novarum that outlined the rights of the working poor, the church has consistently defended the right of workers to safe working conditions. It continues to do this through the current class action. This class action is about the restoration of dignity to the working poor which has been cumulatively disfigured through decades of unsafe working conditions. The mining industry in South Africa and the rest of Africa has accumulated a significant amount of wealth for the continent, but some have done so on the back of a system that violates the right to safe working conditions for miners. Adverse human rights impacts were especially a reality in the mines that have been operational since the dark days of apartheid. In the context of business and human rights law, an "adverse human rights impact" occurs when an action removes or reduces the ability of an individual to enjoy his or her human rights. This includes the "removal" of the enjoyment of the right to health. For decades, mines have tried to shift the responsibility of the human rights impacts to the state, but now is the time to reverse this externalisation and broaden the corporate responsibility in addressing human rights harms linked to the legacy of apartheid-era mining. Former coal mine workers involved in the class action spent a large part of their lives working underground, digging up the wealth that helped to grow and boost South Africa's economy. Over the years, their hard labour boosted South Africa's economy and helped it grow -- and helped mining company shareholders -- but miners have reaped scant rewards for their work. Many of these mine workers are entering their sixties and have been out of work for about a decade. Indeed, what should have been a peaceful retirement has become a desperate time. Their health is compromised and they are not financially stable enough to treat their diseases. A number of the miners we spoke to in preparation of the class action, lamented about their inability to breathe or sleep with ease. Their wheezing coughs and chest pains become apparent when we speak to them, and they often struggle to climb stairs or walk uphill without losing their breath. We heard the accounts of dependants of deceased mine workers who helplessly watched their father or husband's health deteriorate. The women in the household have had to bear the burden of taking care of a very sickly husband and father, robbing them of their own opportunities to find work. Homes and families suffered financially. As is evident, the poor regulation of the industry has had a sustained ripple effect on thousands of families. For some, the existence of thousands of coal miners with lung diseases is simply a public health crisis and a legal crisis. For us, it is also a symptom of a deeper crisis in society, an ethical and spiritual crisis. It is an indictment of the systemic removal of ethical and spiritual values from the economic sphere, values like dignity, compassion, equitable sharing of wealth, accountability and transparency. In the context of the class action that mine workers have launched against coal miners, we are therefore calling on the coal mines to consider their corporate ethical responsibility, and not solely legal and financial responsibility to shareholders. Mining and human development Miners also spoke to us about the systemic disconnect between mining and integral human development. The cases of sick miners should challenge us to interrogate the meaning of human development and the extent to which the mining sector is contributing to such development. The value and strength of the mining industry should be measured, not solely in terms of the extent to which it contributes to the country's gross domestic product and earnings for shareholders, but also the extent to which it is open to repair the adverse harm that it has cumulatively caused in the lives of the working poor and the host communities. In the context of a wellbeing economy, human development is not solely about economic growth, but also about the quality of human life, including rest, dignity of work, compassion, sharing of wealth, solidarity and respect for the dignity of others. In the Catholic Church, we call this "integral human development". Integral human development is the holistic development of the human person, covering all aspects of life: social, economic, political, cultural, personal and spiritual. Mining in rural areas cannot be called "integral human development" when in the 30-year lifespan of the mine, it has extracted massive wealth from a particular rural area in Africa for the benefit of a small elite, be it shareholders or politicians, leaving the rural poor with unrehabilitated mines, black lung disease and extreme poverty. If mining is to fit into the framework of the wellbeing economy and integral human development, it should evolve into an economy that serves the human person and the planet, and not the other way around. Our hope as the church is that the coal mines cited in the class action will emulate the example provided by the gold mining companies involved in the silicosis case who, in consideration of their corporate ethical citizenship, find it in their heart to explore a settlement agreement, and not protract the litigation to 10 or more years while the hundreds of sick miners die before receiving reparation. It does not hurt a corporate brand when a corporation rises to the occasion and apologises for its human rights harms. It does not make a corporation less effective in achieving its strategic growth targets if it decides to repair the human rights harms suffered by its workers. That is what integral human development and a wellbeing economy are all about. That is what corporate ethical citizenship is all about. We hope to see it in this lifetime. [GN] SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Faces Class Action Over ERISA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges Southeastern Freight Lines has "wasted" millions of dollars of employee retirement savings by allowing unreasonable and excessive fees to be paid to a third-party service provider. The 36-page lawsuit says that the trucking company has run afoul of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to prudently control and monitor the compensation paid to T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services (TRP), the Southeastern Freight Lines 401(k) plan's recordkeeper since at least 2012. The suit claims that since 2018, Southeastern has caused more than 10,000 retirement plan participants to pay the third-party recordkeeper almost $5 million in fees, while a reasonable sum should have landed around $1.5 million for that same time period. "Southeastern wasted nearly $3,500,000 of retirement plan participant savings," the case contends. "Plan participants will continue to pay grossly excessive fees, and millions and millions of retirement savings will be frittered away going forward unless this action moves forward." The complaint charges that the trucking company went at least six years without soliciting competitive bids from other service providers in the marketplace, a process that plan fiduciaries such as the defendant should conduct at least every three years in order to compare fees and review services provided by their current recordkeepers. By neglecting to undergo this process at regular intervals, Southeastern allowed plan participants to overpay TRP for recordkeeping services, the filing argues. The defendant reported that it paid TRP in 2021 $564,765 in direct compensation, meaning the third party received approximately $56 per plan participant, the lawsuit relays. "This amount alone is excessive," the suit argues, as a reasonable total for such recordkeeping services "ought to have been no more than $25 per person or $252,000." Aside from direct fees, TRP also receives indirect compensation via "float" on plan participant funds, the case says. When an individual deposits or withdraws money from their account, the funds first pass through a TRP clearing account, where the money stays for up to three days, the complaint explains. According to the filing, the defendant allows TRP to keep the investment returns and any interest earned on the funds while they are in the clearing account. Southeastern reported that there was more than $150 million transferred in and out of its retirement plan accounts in 2021 alone, the lawsuit shares, adding that if the recordkeeper "earned just 1% on this money, then it would have earned $1.5 million in compensation from the Plan via float in 2021." As the suit tells it, TRP also receives indirect compensation through a revenue sharing arrangement with Southeastern, wherein the third party is paid based on the amount of assets in the retirement plan. Thanks to this agreement, as the plan's assets increase, "so do the recordkeeper's fees," the case summarizes. Although the number of retirement plan participants shrunk by 138 individuals between 2016 and 2021, the plan's assets increased by more than $384 million, the complaint describes. Consequently, the compensation reaped by TRP through revenue sharing "sky-rocketed," while the actual services it provided decreased in conjunction with the shrinking number of participants, the filing contests. "In sum, given the size of the Plan's assets during the Class Period and total number of participants, in addition to the general trend towards lower recordkeeping expenses in the marketplace as a whole, Southeastern could have obtained for the Plan recordkeeping services that were comparable to or superior to the typical services provided by TRP at a lower cost -- likely by TRP itself -- had Southeastern acted as a prudent fiduciary would have acted under the circumstances. But Southeastern failed to do so and, as a result, violated its fiduciary duties under ERISA." The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who was a participant in or beneficiary of the Southeastern Freight Lines savings plan at any time since January 1, 2018. [GN] SPOKEO INC: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVIVA KELLMAN, JASON FRY, and NICHOLAS NEWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III entered an order granting joint stipulation to set revised briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- The Defendant's opposition to the motion Dec. 1, 2023 for class certification and expert declaration(s) in support of opposition to class certification motion: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Dec. 21, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for Jan. 24, 2024 class certification: Spokeo is a people search website that aggregates data from online and offline sources. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tdKkQU at no extra charge.[CC] THOMAS VILSACK: Court Defers Ruling on Provisional Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIKA OKJE ERDMANN-BROWNING, et al., v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04678-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order: -- Denying ex parte motion for temporary restraining order without prejudice; -- Deferring ruling on application for provisional class certification; and -- Setting hearing on motion for preliminary injunction. The Court denies the motion for temporary restraining order without prejudice and defers a ruling on the motion for provisional class certification. The Plaintiffs have not "clearly shown that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45mqIrv at no extra charge.[CC] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Officials Can't Evade Depositions in IPO Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that even the apex doctrine -- the controversial judge-made principle that high-ranking corporate officials deserve special protection from abusive or harassing discovery demands -- has its limits. Just ask Uber's CEO, CFO and board members. The ride-hailing and delivery company is facing a securities class action over its 2019 IPO, which raised $8 billion. Investors allege that Uber's offering documents misrepresented the company's financial condition, passenger safety record and "growth at any cost" business model. Uber has refuted the claims, but U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of San Francisco denied the company's motion to dismiss the case in 2020 and certified a class of Uber IPO investors in 2022. This spring, with discovery deadlines approaching, lead plaintiffs lawyers from Labaton Sucharow told Uber's lawyers at Shearman & Sterling that they needed hours of deposition testimony from no fewer than 16 of the company's top officials, including CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, CFO Nelson Chai and every Uber board member at the time of the IPO. Uber said that demand was precisely the sort of harassment that the apex doctrine was developed to avert. Unable to reach a compromise, the two sides laid out their arguments in a joint letter in July to U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu of Oakland, California. Apex doctrine precedent, Uber said, requires plaintiffs to make every effort to obtain information from other sources before demanding testimony from top-ranking executives. The investors in this case, Uber argued, hadn't even conducted depositions of lower-level Uber witnesses or witnesses designated as corporate defendants before insisting on hours-long depositions with more than a dozen apex witnesses. Moreover, according to Uber, the apex doctrine holds that high-level corporate officials can't be forced to testify unless they're shown to have unique, relevant knowledge — and, Uber argued, most of the apex witnesses in the IPO case, including Khosrowshahi, have no such information. The IPO investors countered that the CEO obviously had unique personal knowledge that was relevant to the case, given that many of the alleged misrepresentations cited in their complaint came from a letter written by Khosrowshahi. Lead counsel at Labaton also argued that 14 of the apex witnesses are individually named as defendants in the IPO class action, so investors are entitled to their deposition testimony to prepare for their potential trial testimony. The magistrate, Ryu, ordered both sides to prepare a chart detailing precisely what information plaintiffs sought from each of the apex witnesses and whether that information was available without deposing them. (The 79-page chart, docketed on Aug. 31, is completely redacted.) Ryu asked Uber and investors to try to reach a compromise. They told her they could not, in a Sept. 12 letter. So Ryu resolved the dispute in an order on Sept.19. She sided almost entirely with investors. The judge said Uber's CEO and CFO must each sit for seven-hour depositions. Investors are entitled to depose all of the board members from the time of the IPO, the judge said, although she gave Labaton less time for those depositions than investors had originally sought. Ryu also agreed with investors that three other high-ranking Uber executives had relevant information, but because of potential overlaps in the evidence Labaton is seeking from them, the judge gave investors a choice of conducting seven-hour depositions with any two of the three executives or deposing each of the three for five hours. Discovery in the case was supposed to end on Sept. 20, but Ryu said that investors have until Dec. 20 to complete the apex depositions. An Uber spokesperson declined to comment. I emailed lead shareholder counsel from Labaton and liaison counsel from Levi & Korsinsky but did not hear back. I took particular note of Ryu's apex doctrine ruling in the Uber case because I reported earlier this summer on a less investor-friendly decision from the judge in a shareholder class action accusing Alphabet of misrepresenting user privacy vulnerabilities in some of the company's 2018 securities filings. In the Alphabet case, plaintiffs lawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd broadly asserted that the apex doctrine improperly creates "a caste litigation system where someone, just by virtue of their title, can say . . . I am not subject to the same discovery inconveniences that other, less important people are." Ryu agreed that elements of the doctrine "don't feel entirely fair," but said at a hearing on the discovery dispute that courts have decided it's important to prevent harassment of top officials solely to give plaintiffs litigation leverage. The judge eventually ruled that Alphabet honchos Larry Page, Sundar Pichai and Ruth Porat could not entirely evade depositions, but said time and subject-matter limits were appropriate. She ordered the two sides to come up with a plan reflecting those limitations. Robbins Geller instead asked the judge in Alphabet's case, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of Oakland, to reverse parts of Ryu's ruling. He denied the request just before he recused himself from the case, which is now being overseen by U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson. Robbins Geller refused to let go. On Sept. 19 -- coincidentally, the same day that Ryu refused to shield Uber's apex witnesses from being deposed -- the firm asked Ryu to reconsider her ruling from last July. The firm argued that the apex doctrine is not only unmoored from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but is an affront to the concept of equal justice. "Considering the demographic realities of our country's socioeconomic strata generally and executive-level positions particularly, the euphemistically titled 'apex doctrine' is a 'Discrimination Doctrine,'" Robbins Geller said. Alphabet did not respond to my query. Its lawyers said in the Sept. 19 filing, a joint discovery report, that the company never even sought to preclude depositions based on executives' job titles but merely asked that plaintiffs depose other witnesses first in order to determine where Page, Pichai and Porat can offer unique, relevant information. Alphabet told Ryu that it's time for Robbins Geller to focus on resolving the dispute instead of lobbing rhetorical attacks at the doctrine. I don't think that's going to happen. [GN] UNION SECURITY: Class Cert Responses in Lewis-Abdulhaadi Due Oct. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEWIS-ABDULHAADI v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03805 (E.D. Pa., Filed Aug. 25, 2021), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply regarding second motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to order on motion to certify class, trial brief: -- Responses due by: Oct. 6, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Union Security offers a wide range of medical supplement plans.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Class Cert Discovery in Sambrano Due Nov. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO, ET AL., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order granting the Defendant's joint motion for modification of scheduling order as follows: 1. Class certification discovery shall Nov. 10, 2023 be completed on or before: 2. The Plaintiff's opening brief in Dec. 1, 2023 support of class certification shall be filed on or before: 3. The Defendant's response in opposition Dec. 15, 2023 to class certification shall be filed on or before: 4. The Plaintiff's reply shall be filed Dec. 22, 2023 on or before: United operates a large domestic and international route network spanning cities large and small across the United States and all six inhabited continents. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LA2CT2 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Certification OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.B., individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. United Behavioral Health, Case No. 1:21-cv-00553-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting RB's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's claim is certified as a class action on behalf of a class defined as: "All persons covered under ERISA-governed health care plans, administered or insured by United Behavioral Health, whose requests for coverage for mental health and substance abuse treatment services received at a licensed residential treatment center were denied in total based on its determination that a component of such services is considered experimental, investigational, or unproven." The plaintiff RB is appointed as class representative and Jordan Lewis, P.A. and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, are appointed as co-class counsel. Finally, RB moves to appoint Jordan Lewis, P.A. and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, as co-counsel for the class. Under Rule 23(g)(1), "unless a statute provides otherwise, a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel." On May 12, 2021, plaintiff RB1 filed this ERISA action against UBH. The Plaintiff's one-count complaint challenges defendant's alleged practice of excluding from coverage all mental health and substance abuse treatment services rendered at residential treatment centers where any component of the center's programming is considered "unproven, experimental, or investigational." RB, an employee of General Electric (GE), participates in an employer sponsored ERISA-regulated health plan. His adoptive minor son, JB, who has been diagnosed with numerous mental health disorders, is covered under this plan. UBH provides 24-hour, 7-day access to County Mental Health Services and County Alcohol and Drug Services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LDWZmF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 - and - Randi E. Kassan, Esq. Arthur M. Stock, Esq. Ryan P. Mcmillan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 The Defendant is represented by: Geoffrey M. Sigler, Esq. Clare F. Steinberg, Esq. James A. Tsouvalas, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-530 UNITED STATES: $59-Mil. Pembina Settlement Distribution Begins -------------------------------------------------------------- On September 20, 2023, the Pembina Class Action Settlement Administrator began distribution of $59,000,000 in negotiated settlement proceeds to four Pembina Tribes (the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, the Little Shell Chippewa Tribe of Montana, and the White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Indians) and more than 30,000 individual eligible settlement class members. Additional information for settlement class members is available from the settlement administrator's automated helpline at (833) 999-9915 or online at www.PembinaSettlement.com. IMPORTANT DATES – PEMBINA SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION Check Mailing Date September 20, 2023 (may be deposited/cashed until March 18, 2024) Last Date to Update Name/Address and Request Check Reissue May 15, 2024 (may be deposited/cashed until July 1, 2024) This momentous and historic Pembina Settlement is the result of a lawsuit brought in 1992 by the Pembina Tribes on their behalf and on behalf of eligible Pembina individuals to redress alleged mismanagement by the United States government of two Indian Claims Commission (ICC) judgment awards to the Pembinas. The ICC judgment awards were additional compensation for millions of acres of land that the Pembinas ceded to the United States in the nineteenth century for which the United States paid pennies per acre. The United States, as trustee, was responsible for managing the ICC judgment awards as trust funds until they were distributed to the Pembina beneficiaries in the 1980s and 1990s. This lawsuit alleged that the trust funds were mismanaged and again, additional compensation for the Pembina beneficiaries was in order. The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) represented the Pembinas throughout the lawsuit and over a decade of settlement negotiations. "NARF commends the Pembinas for their perseverance and patience in this precedential case," said NARF Staff Attorney Melody McCoy. "Many are unaware of the tremendous impact the Pembinas have had in holding the United States accountable to Indian tribes and individuals." [GN] [*] Class Actions in Europe Continues to Skyrocket, CMS Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Europe reports that a new report from global law firm CMS finds that 121 claims were filed in 2022 alone, up from 55 in 2018, and that no sector is immune. The legal landscape in Europe is witnessing an unprecedented surge as the number of class actions continues to skyrocket, according to global law firm CMS' 2023 European Class Action Report. An astounding 121 claims were filed in 2022 alone, with notable figures from the preceding years -- 55 in 2018, 72 in 2019, 119 in 2020 and 120 in 2021 -- underscoring the steadfast growth and marking a trend that seems set to endure. As the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) takes hold across member states of the European Union, the continent braces for a tidal wave of consumer-driven legal movements. This monumental shift over the past five years not only illustrates the internationalisation of class actions but also underscores the growing risk that businesses across all sectors face. The report also demonstrates the burgeoning accessibility of litigation funding for class actions across Europe. For instance, the rise in collaboration between claimant law firms and third-party funders is facilitating greater awareness and accessibility to litigation funding. Technological advancements are also streamlining the co-ordination of large-scale class actions. Kenny Henderson, partner at CMS, said: "Our comprehensive data demonstrates the relentless march of class action risk across Europe. 2023 emerges as a pivotal juncture, particularly as European Union member states were bound by the obligation to integrate the minimum provisions of the RAD into their national legislations by June 25. Although not all member states have met this deadline, and varying degrees of consistency mark those that have, the overarching message remains unambiguous: no sector remains unaffected to the far-reaching impact of mass litigation. The same goes for the UK, which remains the highest risk jurisdiction in Europe for class actions." CMS' analysis of the key trends in class action filings for the year 2022 and preceding years revealed the following: Continued growth in class actions: The report underscores the steady growth in class action filings across Europe, reflecting the internationalisation of these actions and the escalating risk that they pose. Figures show a continuous rise in claims: 55 in 2018, 72 in 2019, 119 in 2020, 120 in 2021 and 121 in 2022. Diverse trends in types of claims: It reveals that no sector remains immune to class actions, with the financial services (+71 per cent), consumer products and life sciences (+44 per cent), tech (+33 per cent) and data protection (+38 per cent) sectors experiencing unique shifts in claims patterns in 2022. Quantifying class actions impact: A significant addition to this year's report is the data on claimed quantum in issued class action claims, focusing initially on the UK and the Netherlands, which revealed staggering numbers. As of 2022, class actions in the UK seek more than $120 billion, with almost half of the value of the UK's class actions (approximately 48.4 billion US dollars) found in the mining, energy and transport sector, followed by financial products/professional services (approximately 31.6 billion euros) and technology (approximately 17.3 billion euros). In the Netherlands, technology and consumer claims dominate, comprising 95 per cent of total quantum. Strikingly, financial product claims in Dutch class actions make up just one per cent of the claim value. Five-year snapshot of claims across diverse range of jurisdictions: Whilst the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Portugal remain at the forefront of class action filings, comprising 76 per cent of all actions, the report identifies emerging trends in less traditional jurisdictions. The inclusion of France, Slovenia, Austria, North Macedonia, Romania and Sweden, alongside the aforementioned top performers, underlines the evolving landscape. Spain, Italy, Croatia, Scotland, Poland, Norway and Montenegro collectively account for approximately five per cent of overall claims. Emerging jurisdictions show growth: Whilst the UK and the Netherlands continue to be dominant, Germany and Portugal exhibit strong growth trends of around 70 per cent and 100 per cent, respectively, over the past five years. Remarkably, Slovenia experienced a substantial increase in class actions in 2022 (15 claims), driven by a surge of claims against financial institutions related to consumer credit contracts and interest calculation practices. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***