/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231004.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 4, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 199 Headlines ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Says AETNA LIFE: 4th Cir. Denies Appeal to Review Cert. Ruling ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Overstates Product Effectiveness, Suit Says ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Inks $125M Deal to Resolve Investor Suit ALL COUNTY: Fails to Pay Landscapers' OT Wages, Garcia Claims ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Tosses Sayles Bid to Compel Discovery AMPLIFY ENERGY: Judge OKs $95M Settlement in Beach Oil Spill Suit ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cannon Suit Alleges ARCADIA PRODUCTS: Felipe Labor Suit Ongoing in California Court ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Over IPO Dismissed AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Krakouer Leads Racism Class Action Suit AVISTA CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Babb Road Wildfire AW DISTRIBUTING: Computer Dusters Contain Difluoroethane, Suit Says BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Suit in California BKP INC: Court Applies Litigation Privilege in Labor Class Suit BP ENERGY: Stoneberger Suit Hits Over-Priced Natural Gas BRITISH COLUMBIA: Children Lost Out on Govt. Contributions BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bryant Suit Alleges CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Rodriguez' Class Suit Over CyberAttack CALIFORNIA: Faces Agaton Class Suit Over "Incestuous Relationship" CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Securities Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Officials Consider Settlement Payout Ideas COMMONWEALTH BANK: $50M Deal in Consumer Credit Suit Gets OK COWHAND SADDLERY: Guillot Seeks FLSA Collective Certification CS DISCO: Law Firms Investigate Possible Securities Law Violations DAVE INC: To Settle Stoffers Action Over Data Breach DIGITAL TURBINE: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed DOCUSIGN INC: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class ECUASUR WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calix Alleges EDDIE V'S HOLDINGS: Edgar Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming ELI LILLY & CO: Faces MSP Suit Over Pharmacy Benefit Manager Issue ELI LILLY AND CO: Faces Antitrust Suit in New Jersey ELI LILLY AND CO: Faces FWK Suit Over Insulin Pricing ELI LILLY AND CO: Faces Sistema Integrado Insulin Antitrust Suit ELMORE COUNTY, ID: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brizzi Claims FLUENT INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Pepper FREEDOM FOREVER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Moore Suit Claims FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Fares' Ad FUELING BRAINS: Full Refunds in Outbreak-Hit Daycares Not Assured G11 SECURITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Diaz Alleges GAME TIME: Court Dismisses Helems Suit w/o Prejudice GENEDX HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Modified Class Cert. Order in Jefferson GREYSTAR REAL: Brooks Sues Over Illegal Security Deposit Scheme HAEMONETICS CORP: Crumpton Sues Over Biometrics Data Mishandling HAWAII: Naki Files Suit in D. Hawaii HCA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Richards Says HORIZON BANCORP: Faces Key Securities Suit Over SEC Filing INCOMM FINANCIAL: Smith Sues Over Deceptive Gift Card Marketing JASPER CTY, SC: McDowell Sues Over Withheld COVID-19 Premium Pay JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noviskis Sues Over Decongestants' False Ads KPMG LLP: Seeks Oct. 14 Deadline to Submit Class Cert Brief LEMOS FAMILY: Faces Furman Class Suit Over Underpaid Employees LIGHT & WONDER INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Ongoing LIGHT & WONDER INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in Nevada LIVE NATION: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Heckman Suit LOUISIANA: Class Cert. Ruling in Smith Suit Appealed M&T BANK: Fails to Provide Borrower's Information, Cappiello Says MATTERPORT INC: Arsenault Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties MATTERPORT INC: Faces Suit Over Corporate Opportunity Doctrine MCCAIN FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carr Suit Alleges MERCER COUNTY, PA: Parties Must Complete Class Discovery by Dec. 29 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California MITO ASIAN FUSION: Aguilar Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MJR CUSTOM SHOP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NEOCORTEXT INC: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Young Suit NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges NORFOLK SOUTHERN: BCERS Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PA: Gallagher Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania NYC MASSAGE: Fails to Pay Therapists' Minimum, OT Wages, Suit Says NYKO TECHNOLOGIES: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OAK STREET HEALTH: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over IPO Deal OPENAI INC: Authors Guild Sues Over Harmful Copyright Infringements PACIFIC CHOICE: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PACIFIC GAS: Ogans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PASTA LA VISTA: Avilez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices PENGUIN WELLNESS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PETICULAR LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHILADELPHIA, PA: Violates First Amendment Rights, Suit Claims PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Faces Bar-Asher Securities Suit in E.D. N.Y. PONCA ORGANIC: Davis Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma POST UNIVERSITY: Douglas Files Suit in N.D. Georgia PRGX GLOBAL: Ebert Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia PRIME HYDRATION: T.K. Suit Hits Beverages' False Ads and Labels PROCTER & GAMBLE: Coppock Sues Over False and Misleading Products PROCTER & GAMBLE: Misled Consumers on Decongestants, Suit Says QTC COMMERCIAL: Bravener Sues Over Failure to Protect PII & PHI RECKITT BENCKISER: Boonparn Sues Over Deceptive Practices RECKITT BENCKISER: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Scoffier Over Alleged Ineffective PE Drugs REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE: Facebook-Pixel Suit Bounced to State Court RICOLA USA: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Menthol Lozenges ROBERTSON'S TRANSPORT: Richardson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROCKY TOP: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum & OT Wages, Manis Says SHOP MOLLY GREEN: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SKIPLAGGED INC: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Airline Tickets Sale SLT LENDING SPV: Keifer Suit Removed to N.D. California SLUSS + PADGETT: Walton Files Suit in N.D. Georgia SOFI TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Juarez Discrimination Suit SOUTH STATE TRAILER: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HEALTHCARE: Violates Genetic Privacy Law SOUTHERN REEL: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SPIRIT AIRLINES: Elgamal Files Suit in S.D. Florida SPIRIT MANUFACTURING: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STORZ & BICKEL AMERICA: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS: Drawdy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drawdy Claims SUNLIGHT SOLAR: Weschta Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California SYNERGY HEALTHCARE: Mark Files Suit in S.D. Ohio TD AMERITRADE: Schultz Sues Over Data Security Failures TESLA INC: Fails to Safeguard Employees' Personal Info, Cobb Says THOMSON HOSPITALITY: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TN AUBURN LLC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TREK BICYCLE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Espinal Says TRUEACCORD CORP: Quinn-Davis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida UNITED AIRLINES: Class Suit Over ADA Violation Withdrawn UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Appeals Cert. Ruling in COVID Suit UPGRADE INC: Dieffenbach Sues to Recover Overcharges US ASSET MANAGEMENT: Mellese Files Suit in D. Texas VIVEK 2024: Woods Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona W.L. YORK: Nicholson Appeals Final Judgment in Discrimination Suit WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Wells Suit Over Pink Eye Drops' False Ads WEBSTAURANT STORE: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Ruling in Gollman Suit WHALECO INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Hu Alleges WHEN THE SHOE FITS: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WILLIAM PAINTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrantes Alleges WINCO HOLDINGS: Gomez Suit Removed to E.D. California XOOM ENERGY: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Mirkin Suit ZIPPO MANUFACTURING: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ZIX CORPORATION: Kuchel Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ********* ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY QUEVEDO ARREDONDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR DIAGNOSTICS, PLLC; PERRY FRANKEL; and OSAMA HIMAYA, Defendants, Case No. 719406/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Sept. 19, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Arredondo was employed by the Defendants as a Covid supply handler. ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR DIAGNOSTICS, PLLC specializes in providing cardio services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 AETNA LIFE: 4th Cir. Denies Appeal to Review Cert. Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Cass at beckerspayer.com reports that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Sept. 13 it won't review a lower court's ruling that certified class-action status in a lawsuit alleging Aetna and OptumHealth Care Solutions conspired to use "dummy code" to make administrative fees appear to be billable medical charges. The three-judge panel unanimously denied Aetna and Optum's request to review a North Carolina federal judge's June decision to certify class-action status, according to court records. The judges did not provide an explanation for their decision in the order. The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2015, alleges the two insurers tricked plaintiff Sandra Peters, other patients similarly situated and their employers into paying administrative fees by disguising them as medical expenses. The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The two classes certified by the judge could cover more than 87,000 health plan participants, according to court records. A judge initially ruled in Optum and Aetna's favor in 2019, but a federal appeals court reversed the decision in 2021, finding that Aetna conducted a "breach of its fiduciary duty" in burying administrative fees and that Optum utilized unauthorized transactions. The Supreme Court denied Optum's bid to drop the lawsuit last year.[GN] ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Overstates Product Effectiveness, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action claims Albertsons Companies, Inc. has misled consumers about the efficacy of its Signature Care-brand adhesive lidocaine patches. According to the 26-page lawsuit, the front-label claims that the product is a "[s]tay-put flexible patch" that provides "Maximum Strength" pain relief and "[d]esensitizes aggravated nerves & relieves pain" are misleading because the patches adhere to the skin for no longer than four hours and "often peel[] off within minutes of light activity." Albertsons' representations imply that the patches provide benefits beyond their actual capabilities as over-the-counter (OTC) products that are less potent than prescription lidocaine patches and which lack FDA approval, the suit alleges. The case argues that although the drug facts panel on the back label directs consumers to "[u]se one patch for up to 12 hours," the lidocaine patches at issue "cannot ‘Stay-put' for any time even approaching twelve hours." Indeed, the complaint explains, the product uses the same "defective adhesion technology" as other generic, OTC patches which have been shown to peel off the skin within four hours -- sometimes even minutes -- of application. The filing contends that the Signature Care patches' "Maximum Strength" claim deceives consumers, not only because higher-strength products are available with a prescription, but because the "adhesion deficiencies" substantially inhibit the delivery and absorption of lidocaine into the skin. As the suit tells it, the claim that the product at issue "[d]esensitizes aggravated nerves & relieves pain" is "inconsistent and contradictory" with the fine print of the drug facts panel that merely states the patches "[t]emporarily relieve[] minor pain." Per the case, federal and state laws deem a product misbranded if its labeling contains misleading statements or claims. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Maryland who purchased Signature Care-brand adhesive lidocaine patches within the state during the applicable statute of limitations period.[GN] ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Inks $125M Deal to Resolve Investor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angus Liu at fiercepharma.com reports that nearly seven years have passed since Alexion's then-CEO and CFO stepped down amid an investigation into improper sales practices. Now, the rare disease specialist can put the episode completely in the rearview mirror thanks to a settlement with investors. Alexion, now part of AstraZeneca, has reached a $125 million deal with investors to resolve their class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs said in a court filing. Plaintiffs launched their case in late 2016, a few weeks after Alexion disclosed an investigation into a whistleblower allegation about sales practices for the company's flagship product, Soliris. The company's then-CEO David Hallal and CFO Vika Sinha left the company shortly before the litigation kicked off. Alexion's stock price tumbled after the disclosure. Angry investors claimed that the company made false statements about its sales tactics, and that its share price was artificially inflated as a result. At the beginning of 2017, Alexion acknowledged that senior management pressured employees to convince customers to place their Soliris orders earlier than they would have otherwise. The practice, known as "pull-in sales," was intended to boost quarterly performance. Still, it wasn't "inherently problematic or impermissible" as long as it didn't violate U.S. accounting rules, the company said. In the years after that episode, the company was dogged by government probes into its sales tactics. In 2019, Alexion, Jazz Pharma and Lundbeck together agreed to pay $122.6 million to resolve allegations that they illegally covered the copays for their products under Medicare. And in 2020, Alexion paid $21.5 million to settle foreign corruption charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company was said to have improperly paid Turkish and Russian government officials to win favorable treatment for Soliris. Alexion didn't admit or deny the agency's findings in that deal. These days, Alexion's focus has shifted to the company's newer C5 inhibitor Ultomiris. As AZ works to convert patients to the follow-on drug, Soliris' sales dropped by 18% in the first half of the year to $1.6 billion. Ultomiris' sales jumped 60% to $1.4 billion during the same period. Meanwhile, biosimilars to Soliris aren't too far away. Through a deal signed in 2020, Alexion will face Amgen's Soliris biosimilar in the U.S. by 2025.[GN] ALL COUNTY: Fails to Pay Landscapers' OT Wages, Garcia Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON DE LEON GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ALL COUNTY LANDSCAPING SERVICES LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, and PERRY RUSSO, an individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-20515 (D.N.J., Sept. 20, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiff worked five days per week, from Monday through Friday, generally 7:00 a.m. through 5:30 p.m., 50-55 hours per week. At the commencement of his employment, the Plaintiff was paid at the rate of $19.00 per hour. This rate eventually increased to $20.00 per hour. The Plaintiff was paid at the gross rate of $800 per week by check and would receive a cash payment for any overtime hours worked at the regular rate of $20.00 per hour. Thus, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime premium (time and a half) for any hours worked over 40 in each workweek, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages, including applicable interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff further seeks certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf, and as a class action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of a class of individuals defined as follows: "Any and all individuals employed by Defendants at Defendants' business at any time during the six-year period preceding the date on which this complaint was filed." Excluded from the Class is any person who is an executive, professional, managerial, or other employee of Defendants who is exempt from coverage under the NJWHL and FLSA, and not subject to protection of those laws. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a landscaper from April 2021 through August 2023. All County is a landscaping company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik M. Bashian, Esq. BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C. 500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 279-1554 Facsimile: (516) 213-0339 E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com - and - Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone:(954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com melanie@nklegal.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Tosses Sayles Bid to Compel Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA SAYLES, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Case No. 3:16-cv-01534-MEM-MCC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Martin C. Carlson entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery to the demands which she had propounded more than two years earlier. In the case, Sayles invited the Court to certify the following class of plaintiffs under Rule 23: "All persons injured in motor vehicle accidents and insured under Pennsylvania auto insurance policies issued by defendant which provided for medical benefits coverage whom defendant required or directed to submit to insurance physical exams without Court order directing insured to submit to physical exams and who then had medical benefits denied based on defendant’s medical exam actions." Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46n7jay at no extra charge.[CC] AMPLIFY ENERGY: Judge OKs $95M Settlement in Beach Oil Spill Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ocregister.com reports that a federal judge in Santa Ana on Sept. 14, signed off on a $95 million class-action settlement involving the 2021 oil spill in Huntington Beach, clearing the way for those affected to soon receive checks. Judge David O. Carter had already approved in April a $50 million settlement between Houston-based Amplify Energy and the class-action plaintiffs, which includes fishers, tourist companies and homeowners. Court hearing was largely about signing off on a $45 million settlement agreement with vessel companies MSC Danit and M/V Beijing; it also decided whether operators of the air show going on that weekend in Huntington Beach could be considered part of the class-action litigation. Carter ruled that Pacific Airshow could get about $2 million from the settlement, but the payout might be less depending on how funds are allocated, said Wylie Aitken, an attorney for the plaintiffs. The air show's claim would be part of the $50 million agreement. The attorney for the air show, Dan Robinson, indicated the company may seek to opt out of the class-action suit, presumably so it could pursue a potentially more lucrative lawsuit on its own against Amplify Energy, which operates the pipeline that leaked about 25,000 gallons of crude into the ocean off Huntington Beach. Aitken said he is "delighted on a number of levels" to wrap up the litigation. He said resolving a class-action lawsuit of this size within 15 months is unheard of and pointed to a 2015 oil spill in Santa Barbara that took about seven years to reach a settlement. Aitken said those entitled to the settlement funds could expect their checks within the next couple of months. "If there is anyone who has not put in a claim that we can identify, we will want to make sure that money gets out to them as well" he said. The Pacific Airshow, which had its last day canceled in 2021 because of the spill, has already settled for almost $5 million with Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach could also pay Pacific Airshow up to $2 million more, depending on how much the city gets from its own lawsuit against Amplify Energy. A spokesperson for Amplify Energy reached referred to the company's March statement when it announced it had reached its own settlement with MSC Danit and M/V Beijing. Amplify Energy President and CEO Martyn Willsher said then, "We are eager to move forward and turn the page on this unfortunate and preventable event … Amplify has operated off the coast of California for years in a safe and responsible manner and we remain committed to ensuring the safety and protection of our employees, the environment and our surrounding communities." Carter praised the terms of the settlements and the speed at which they were reached. "Getting $95 million back to the public so quickly is beneficial," Carter said, adding it was much better than the anticipated seven years of litigation if it went to trial. He appreciated how the attorneys worked out a way to get money to the affected waterfront tourism businesses when there were scant claims filed. Last year, Amplify Energy settled criminal cases in state and federal court and agreed to pay fines. The company agreed in federal court to pay a $7.1 million fine and $5.8 million to reimburse the U.S. Coast Guard for expenses from the October 2021 spill and agreed to pay $4.9 million in fines to resolve a misdemeanor complaint in state court. The pipeline, which is used to carry crude oil from several offshore drilling platforms to a processing plant in Long Beach, began leaking the afternoon of Oct. 1, 2021, but oil continued to pump through the line until the following morning, authorities have said. About 25,000 gallons of oil seeped into the ocean from the ruptured 16-inch pipeline, which is submerged about 4.7 miles west of Huntington Beach. Beaches were closed up and down the Orange County coast as crews worked to contain the crude oil. Federal investigators have said the pipeline appeared to have been damaged by a ship's anchor, likely belonging to one of dozens of cargo ships that were backlogged over a period of months outside the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex. More than a dozen companies doing business in the region sued Amplify Energy for damages resulting from the spill. Fishing resumed in late November 2021 along the Orange County coast, following a two-month shutdown of fisheries due to the spill. The fishing ban encircled 650 square miles of marine waters and about 45 miles of shoreline, including all bays and harbors from Seal Beach to San Onofre State Beach, officials said.[GN] ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cannon Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- CASEY CANNON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case 2:23-cv-01236-PP (E.D. Wis., Sept. 19, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Cannon was employed by the Defendant as a security guard. Andy Frain Services, Inc. offers security services. The Company provides security and guards for business, transportation, retail, sports, entertainment, and special events. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com ARCADIA PRODUCTS: Felipe Labor Suit Ongoing in California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- DMC Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that there are still remaining individual claims in the labor suit captioned "Felipe v. Arcadia, Inc. and One Stop Employment Services, Inc." where the plaintiff has subsequently dismissed the class action claims without prejudice, acknowledging that Arcadia's arbitration agreement likely bars such class claims. Arcadia Products, LLC is a subsidiary of DMC while One Stop is a staffing agency which provides temporary workers to Arcadia. This complaint was filed on October 22, 2021 in Los Angeles Superior Court and purports to allege a class action on behalf of all non-exempt California employees who worked on behalf of One Stop or Arcadia at any time during the four years preceding the date of the complaint. The complaint states claims under California's labor laws and under its general Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Over IPO Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Array Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on May 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the company's motion to dismiss a putative class action against the company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. On July 5, 2023, the Court denied the lead plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint and dismissed it with prejudice. On June 30, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York against the company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (Keippel Action). It alleged misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the company's registration statements and prospectuses related to the its IPO, the company's 2020 Follow-On Offering and its 2021 Follow-On Offering during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the court consolidated the Keippel Action with and existing MDL for all pretrial purposes and, ordered all filings to be made in the MDL. On December 7, 2021, an amended class action complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff the company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the period from October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021. It alleges misstatements and/or omissions in: (1) certain of the company's registration statements and prospectuses related to the company's IPO, its 2020 Follow-On Offering, and the its 2021 Follow-On Offering in its Annual Report on Form 10-K and associated press release announcing results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2020 and in its November 5, 2020 and March 9, 2021 earnings calls. On August 17, 2022, the court set a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss with the opening motion and supporting memorandum to be filed on or before October 17, 2022, any opposition to be filed on or before December 16, 2022, and any reply in support of the motion to be filed on or before January 16, 2023. The company and other defendants in the Plymouth Action filed a joint motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 17, 2022. The lead plaintiff filed a motion opposing the Motion to Dismiss on December 16, 2022, and the company and other defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on January 17, 2023. On May 19, 2023, the court granted the company's Motion to Dismiss. On July 5, 2023, the court denied the lead plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint and dismissed it with prejudice. On August 4, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s dismissal of the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Array Technologies, Inc. is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and manufactures and supplies solar tracking systems and related products for customers across the United States and internationally. The company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, ATI Investment Sub, Inc., owns subsidiaries through which it conducts substantially all operations. AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Krakouer Leads Racism Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Pierik at theage.com.au reports that North Melbourne great Phil Krakouer is among a group of seven Indigenous former footballers who have launched a class action against the AFL for alleged racist abuse during their playing days. In documents lodged in the Supreme Court, the players, all now retired but employed between 1975 and 2022, accuse the AFL of failing to stop, and protect them, from racial taunts which they claim led to life-altering damage. Krakouer, now 63, lit up the then VFL when he and brother Jim crossed from Claremont in Western Australia to join the Kangaroos in 1982. Phil played 141 games (224 goals) until 1989. He then had two seasons with the Western Bulldogs, managing only seven games (seven goals). "This case means we are finally being heard. Racism has been swept under the carpet for too long. For decades, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people of colour have been racially abused while playing AFL, and we feel the AFL sat back and watched it all go by," Mr Krakouer said. "I was a 22-year-old kid that tried out for the big league. I was completely naïve and full of dreams. I was hoping that great things were going to happen. It was a professional sport and the AFL allowed us to be abused and traumatised. We signed up to play football, not to be racially abused. Racism is not part of the game. It goes so far beyond sledging. "Myself, and others, have been deeply affected by not only the comments that were made to us. The lack of support from the AFL made it worse. We want our experience to be validated by the AFL. We don't want to feel like victims anymore. All we were doing was playing footy. "The AFL had the power to stop it, and they have the power to stop it ever happening again. Sorry doesn't cut it. They have to make sure this never occurs again, for everyone. You can't improve present and the future without addressing the past." AFL spokesman Jay Allen said the league had not been served any papers. "The AFL has not been served with any documents or been provided with any information regarding a class action that has apparently been provided to the media. If any formal correspondence is served on us we will review it," Allen said. "Until that occurs, we are unable to make any comment." Margalit Injury Lawyers managing principal Michel Margalit, who is also running a class action against the AFL for concussion and brain trauma, confirmed she was acting for seven Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and/or people of colour who played football or were employed or engaged by the VFL and AFL between 1975 and 2022, who experienced racism, racial vilification, racial discrimination, racial abuse or victimisation in what was the VFL, and now AFL. However, the names of the six other players involved in the action will not be released until the case has a hearing in court. Krakouer's writ claims he suffered "long-term emotional harm and distress leading to persisting psychiatric illness", but he does not list alleged offenders or specific instances of racism. "The plaintiff has incurred medical and like expenses, full particulars of which will be provided prior to trial. The plaintiff's employment capacity has been impaired by reason of the injury," the writ says. The writ lists each VFL-AFL club from his time playing, including the now defunct Fitzroy Lions and Brisbane Bears, but not the Brisbane Lions. Krakouer says the AFL should have taken action "to impose sanctions and penalties against clubs, cheer squads and spectators for participating in the impugned conduct against the Plaintiff and group members during their engagement." Ms Margalit said "racial vilification has been a known tactic of play within AFL games". "This tactic is reprehensible and has caused lifelong scars to our clients. The AFL failed to take adequate action, even in the face of laws condemning such behaviour," Ms Margalit said. "Our clients have courageously shared their deeply personal stories of racial vilification suffered throughout their AFL careers. The racial abuse suffered by players was extreme – not just words, but repugnant physical acts such as spitting and violence. The AFL was aware of this racial abuse and, as the keeper of the code, failed to take decisive action to protect players. "These players often began playing AFL football as teenagers. They were there to play football and live out their dreams. Instead, they were taunted and racially vilified and left out in the cold to defend themselves." Ms Margalit said while the AFL had taken steps to address racism in the sport, this had not helped players from decades past. She said the AFL knew, or ought to have known, of the immediate and long-term adverse consequences of experiencing racial vilification, both physical and verbal, and expects more players to join the class action. The class action comes in a season when a report into historical claims of racism at the Hawthorn Football Club rocked the sport. The AFL reached an agreement with the families involved and apologised for past instances of racism in the game. Former Hawthorn officials Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt were cleared of any wrongdoing under AFL rules, and all strenuously denied allegations that they mistreated First Nations players and their partners at the Hawks between 2010 and 2016. However, families at the centre of the investigation are pursuing their claims in the Australian Human Rights Commission. Collingwood was also embroiled in a racial storm for alleged historical offences in 2021, leading to the Do Better report, and significant change. St Kilda great Nicky Winmar famously took a defiant stand against racism at Victoria Park in 1993 when he lifted his jumper and pointed to his skin, while Michael Long's decision to launch an official complaint against Magpies ruckman Damien Monkhorst after the Anzac Day clash in 1995 is seen as pivotal moment in the AFL's bid to change cultural attitudes. [GN] AVISTA CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Babb Road Wildfire ---------------------------------------------------------- Avista Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2023, that nine lawsuits seeking unspecified damages have been filed in connection with the wildfire in Babb Road near Malden and Pine City. The lawsuits include six subrogation actions filed by insurance companies seeking recovery for amounts paid to insureds; two actions on behalf of individual plaintiffs; and a class action lawsuit. All proceedings were consolidated for discovery and pre-trial proceedings, are pending in the Superior Court of Spokane County Washington under the lead action "Blakely v. Avista Corporation et al.," and variously assert causes of action for negligence, private nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. On September 16, 2022, the company filed a motion in the Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington, seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims as a matter of law on the grounds that they are not legally cognizable under Washington law. On October 14, 2022, the Superior Court heard oral argument on that motion. The Court concluded the company's motion involved mixed questions of law and fact, and, as a consequence, could not be granted at that stage of the proceedings; however, the court indicated the company could bring the issue before the court again after discovery is completed. Avista Corp. is primarily an electric and natural gas utility with certain other business ventures. Avista Utilities is an operating division of Avista Corp., comprising its regulated utility operations in the Pacific Northwest. Avista Utilities provides electric distribution and transmission, and natural gas distribution services in parts of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Avista Utilities also provides natural gas distribution service in parts of northeastern and southwestern Oregon. Avista Utilities has electric generating facilities in Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana. Avista Utilities also supplies electricity to a small number of customers in Montana. AW DISTRIBUTING: Computer Dusters Contain Difluoroethane, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Whiten, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Michael Robins, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AW Distributing, Inc., AW Product Sales & Marketing, Inc., Falcon Safety Products, Inc., Norazza, Inc., Wal-Mart Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.L.C., Case No. 4:23-cv-00209-WMR (N.D. Ga., Sept. 20, 2023) alleges that the computer dusters manufactured by the Defendants are identical in composition -- all are composed almost entirely of Difluoroethane (DFE) and contain a trace amount of a bitterant known as denatonium benzoate (DB). The products at issue in this case, which include Ultra Duster, Dust-Off, Endust, and the private label versions of each of these respective products were defective, unreasonably dangerous, not merchantable, and not reasonably suited for the use intended in that they were designed in such a manner that in reasonably foreseeable usage, the user would suffer harm and/or death. Allegedly, such defects were unreasonably dangerous and ultimately proximately caused and/or contributed to damages including, the resultant death of Michael Robins and injury and death to thousands of other users. DFE is a highly addictive and dangerous chemical which is unfit to be sold in a consumer product. Each can of computer duster was comprised of 99.9% DFE, a dangerous refrigerant which is highly addictive and creates intense euphoria when inhaled or "huffed." The Defendants are also aware that DFE has addictive properties and increases the risk of inhalant abuse. Accordingly, the Defendants' computer dusters cost as little as $1.89 per can. All are available in multipacks and do not feature warnings about inhalant addiction, specific physiological harms, or guidance to prevent inhalant abuse. The Defendants have worked to ensure that dusters continue to be sold without: regard to purchaser's age, restriction on number of cans purchased, or design changes to prevent or curtail inhalant abuse, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff is decedent Michael Robins's legal and biological mother. AW designed, manufactured, tested, labeled, marketed, distributed, and placed in the stream of commerce Ultra Duster and private label versions of Ultra Duster, including Innovera and Office Depot dusters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Chad Nuce, Esq. PASLEY, NUCE, MALLORY & DAVIS, LLC 300 West Gordon St. Thomaston, GA 30286 Telephone: (706) 646-3200 E-mail: cnuce@pnlawgroup.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2, 2023, that it is facing a lawsuit by purported shareholders filed on February 23, 2023 against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its President of Worldwide Research and Development in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and a common law fraud claim. The complaint alleges violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for making materially false or misleading statements regarding the clinical trials and Biologics License Application (BLA) for ROCTAVIAN (formerly known as valoctocogene roxaparvovec) by purportedly failing to disclose that differences between the company's Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 clinical studies limited the ability of the Phase 1/2 study to support ROCTAVIAN's durability of effect and, as a result, that it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the BLA without additional data. It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and other costs, and any further relief the court may deem just and proper. BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a global biotechnology company that develops and commercializes targeted therapies that address the root cause of genetic conditions. Its commercial portfolio includes ROCTAVIAN, which was granted marketing approval in the United States on June 29, 2023 and conditional marketing approval in the European Union on August 24, 2022. BKP INC: Court Applies Litigation Privilege in Labor Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Derek Franklin of DuanneMorris.com report that in Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP v. BKP, Inc., No. 21-SC-930, (Col. Sept. 11, 2023), the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that an attorney's allegedly defamatory statements about a company's wage-and-hour practices during a press conference to announce filing a class action against that same company were protected by the litigation privilege. The Supreme Court's unanimous en banc opinion held that the Colorado Court of Appeals erred in concluding that there was an exception to the applicability of the litigation privilege where the size and contours of the proposed class were easily ascertainable from the employer's records and undermined the need to identify and alert potential class members through the press. In reversing the appellate panel's ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court determined that the attorney's statements were shielded from defamation claims by the litigation privilege since the statements merely repeated wage-and-hour allegations made in the complaint and advanced the goals of the lawsuit. The decision in BKP serves as a reminder to companies of the potential pitfalls of bringing defamation claims against attorneys who disseminate information to the public about a party that they are suing in a class action. Case Background In 2018, two law firms, Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP and Towards Justice (collectively, along with attorney Mari Newman of Killmer, Lane & Newman, "the Attorneys"), filed a federal class action lawsuit claiming that Ella Bliss Beauty Bar ("Ella Bliss"), an operator of beauty salons in the Denver metropolitan area, failed to properly pay its nail technicians for required custodial work under federal and Colorado state law. Id. at 5. On the same day the federal lawsuit was filed, one the Attorneys, Mari Newman, held a press conference in which she stated that Ella Bliss nail technicians had to clean the businesses "for no pay whatsoever," that the salons "only pay [employees] for the hours they feel like paying," and that Ella Bliss "is simply too cheap to pay its workers the money they deserve." Id. at 43. The Attorneys collectively also issued a press release that day asserting that "Ella Bliss Beauty Bar forced its service technicians to perform janitorial work without pay, refused to pay overtime, withheld tips, and shorted commissions." Id. at 44. Exactly one year later, Ella Bliss' parent company, BKP, Inc. ("BKP") filed a defamation lawsuit against the Attorneys in Colorado state court pertaining to five allegedly defamatory statements that the Attorneys made during their 2018 press remarks, including the ones quoted above. Id. at 13. The district court dismissed the defamation suit and found that the Attorneys' statements were protected by the litigation privilege, which shields from defamation claims statements by an attorney that have "some reference to the subject matter of . . . proposed or pending litigation." Id. at 22. When the Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals, the appellate panel partially reversed the district court's decision and found that some of the statements at issue were not shielded by the litigation privilege. Id. at 49. While the Attorneys argued that the goals of the media statements were to promote their class action and publicize it to potential additional class members, the appellate panel rejected that notion since the Attorneys were set to receive employment records and payroll documents in discovery that could have easily identified the class members without needing to resort to harmful press statements. Id. at 14. Following the appellate decision, the Colorado Supreme Court granted the petitioner's writ for certiorari and analyzed on the question of "whether the common law litigation privilege for party-generated publicity in pending class action litigation excludes situations in which the identities of class members are ascertainable through discovery." Id. at 1. The Colorado Supreme Court's Decision On further appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the appellate panel's ruling and determined that the litigation privilege applied to the allegedly defamatory attorney statements at issue. Id. at 49. The Supreme Court reasoned that the statements "merely repeated, summarized, or paraphrased allegations in the class action complaint" and, therefore, “served to notify the public, absent class members, and witnesses about, and therefore furthered the objective of, the litigation." Id. at 42. The Supreme Court also held that the appellate panel erred by basing its litigation privilege analysis on whether the identities of class members were easily ascertainable through discovery. Id. at 2. According to the Supreme Court, two reasons led to that conclusion: "(1) ascertainability is generally a requirement in class action litigation, and imposing such a condition would unduly limit the privilege in this kind of case;" and (2) "the eventual identification of class members by way of documents obtained during discovery is not a substitute for reaching absent class members and witnesses in the beginning stages of litigation." Id. Implications For Employers The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in BKP, Inc. is notable in that it may serve to embolden the inclination of some class action plaintiffs' attorneys to use strategic communication techniques to air their clients' claims in the 'court of public opinion' in an attempt to gain leverage, as well as using mass communication tools to grow the reach of their lawsuit to more potential class members. While employers understandably may want to fight back against weaponized misinformation by asserting defamation claims, employers should exercise caution and pick their battles when it comes to such claims, given the high potential for variance in judicial outcomes in states where the case law on this issue remains unsettled and the jurisdictional variables also at play. Ultimately, corporate counsel should carefully consider the potential risks of pursuing a defamation claim against an attorney based on statements that a court may find shielded by privilege regardless of their truthfulness. [GN] BP ENERGY: Stoneberger Suit Hits Over-Priced Natural Gas -------------------------------------------------------- PJ Stoneberger, Ralph Stoneberger, Robin Gudde, Wendy Dunkin, and Regeana Shelton, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BP Energy Company, CIMA Energy, Ltd., Macquarie Energy LLC, and Southwest Energy Corp., Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01195 (D. Kan., Sept. 12, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated residents of Kansas, against Defendants under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The Kansas Consumer Protection Act, among other prohibitions, makes it unlawful for suppliers to: (1) induce consumers into transactions that are excessively one-sided; or (2) profiteer from a disaster. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri brought sustained and extreme cold weather to Kansas, causing Governor Laura Kelley to proclaim a state of disaster. According to the complaint, Defendants -- all suppliers of natural gas -- charged prices that exceeded more than 100 times, and on one day, more than 200 times, the price of natural gas before Winter Storm Uri hit the State of Kansas. The Plaintiffs accordingly bring these claims to recover damages as a result of Defendants' unconscionable practices. BP Energy Company is a for-profit corporation organized in Delaware with its principal place of business in Texas. At all relevant times, BP Energy produced and sold natural gas to Plaintiffs through Kansas Municipal Gas Agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay F. Fowler, Esq. Samuel J. Walenz, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Telephone: (316) 291-9541 Facsimile: (316) 267-6345 E-mail: jfowler@foulston.com swalenz@foulston.com - and - Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq. Lee M. Smithyman, Esq. James P. Zakoura, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP 7500 College Blvd., Suite 1400 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 484-4627 Facsimile: (913) 498-2101 E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com lsmithyman@foulston.com jzakoura@foulston.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Children Lost Out on Govt. Contributions ---------------------------------------------------------- James Langton at investmentexecutive.com reports that proposed class action arguing that the government of British Columbia failed children in the province's care by not opening RESPs or RDSPs for them has passed a hurdle on the way to certification. The Supreme Court of B.C. has ruled that they may have a viable claim. The Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Vancouver along with a former ward of the state, Delilah Gibot, are the plaintiffs in the proposed class action against the province's Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), alleging that children in provincial care lost out on government contributions that would have been made to RESPs and RDSPs as well as the investment income they would have earned. The plaintiffs also allege that "the PGT's failings are part of a pattern of neglect towards children in government care in B.C., and the alleged breaches are part of an ongoing failure to properly transition minors out of government care and into adulthood with the necessary supports." For its part, the PGT argued that the proposed claims are bound to fail, and don't meet the test for certification. However, the B.C. Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the claims "met the low standard that applies to determining whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action." It's not obvious that the claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty are bound to fail, it said. The court did strike one element of the action, however, ruling that a claim that the PGT was obliged to ascertain whether children were eligible for DTC status cannot succeed. It granted relief to allow the plaintiffs to amend the pleading to comply with that decision. "Because of the impact of my conclusion on other requirements for certification, I also grant the parties leave to make further submissions, following amendments to the pleading rather than deciding on those requirements at this stage," it said. [GN] BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bryant Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DELANEY BRYANT; BRIANNA LEMMON; and VIOLET OSPINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUFFALO EXCHANGE, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08286 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as retail employees. Buffalo Exchange, Ltd. was founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of women's ready-to-wear clothing. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. Eliana J. Theodorou, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Rodriguez' Class Suit Over CyberAttack ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Leal of Courthouse News Service reports that one day after reporting a massive data breach, Caesars Entertainment, which operates eight hotel casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, now faces a class action that looks to hold the hotel and casino giant liable for exposing its customers' personal information to hackers. The named plaintiff, Miguel Rodriguez, filed the class action on September 15, 2023 in federal court in Nevada, on behalf of himself and other members of Caesars' loyalty programs, who are now at risk of cybercriminals using the six terabytes of stolen sensitive information to take out loans using customers' identities, file fraudulent tax returns and obtain false identifications and phony driver licenses. "Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant responsible for the injuries defendant inflicted on plaintiff and tens of thousands similarly situated persons due to defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals at a still undetermined and/or undisclosed time but was otherwise discovered on Sept. 7," Rodriguez, who is being represented by Las Vegas-based attorney Miles Clark, said in the suit. Rodriguez claimed that Caesars' -- which owns and operates dozens of hotel and casino properties under its Caesars, Eldorado and Harrah's brands -- was negligent in its data security efforts and that customers were not informed of the issue in a timely manner. He notes in the suit that although Caesars first disclosed the attack on Sept. 14, the company did not explain in a filing to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission the full breadth of the breach. "Although the data breach was discovered on September 7, 2023, it is presently unknown and/or undisclosed as to when the actual data breach occurred, and for what period of time defendant's systems were exposed. Defendant also failed to indicate when it first identified the 'suspicious activity' that resulted in the investigation," Rodriguez wrote. According to Rodriguez, Caesars failed to maintain their network, software and technology partners, rendering the business "easy prey" for cybercriminals to exploit. Furthermore, the suit claims the customers affected will suffer ongoing harm from fraud and identity theft, and customers will have to be vigilant and constantly monitor their financial accounts. "To date, defendant has failed to provide notice to plaintiff and affected class members -- thereby exacerbating their injuries. Ultimately, defendant deprived plaintiff and class members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm," Rodriguez said in the suit. "Simply put, defendant impermissibly left plaintiff and class members in the dark -- thereby causing their injuries to fester and the damage to spread." Rodriguez is seeking a number of remedies, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief, including improvements to defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by defendant. "We have taken steps to ensure that the stolen data is deleted by the unauthorized actor, although we cannot guarantee this result," Caesars Entertainment said in a statement. Attorneys for Rodriguez did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The September 14, 2023 disclosure of the data breach by Caesars came after MGM Resorts International disclosed their own data breach on September 11, 2023. MGM -- another major player on the Las Vegas Strip -- experienced widespread disruption this week after being hit by cybercriminals on September 10, 2023. [GN] CALIFORNIA: Faces Agaton Class Suit Over "Incestuous Relationship" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert JHansen of The Davis Vanguard reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed by former clients of embattled plaintiff attorney Thomas Girardi against the California State Bar, arguing the agency's "incestuous relationship" with the now-disbarred attorney allowed him to steal millions of dollars from clients. Ana and Arturo Agaton's son died of a brain tumor at age six from exposure to excessive levels of hexavalent chromium released into the air where he lived in Riverside, CA., according to the lawsuit. Arturo Jr.'s death was linked to a cement company, TXI Industries, which had been emitting excessive levels of chromium for six years. The Agatons hired Girardi who won the lawsuit in 2015, settling for $31 million, the lawsuit maintains, noting the Agatons never received their share of the $31 million settlement Girardi Keese negotiated with TXI Industries in 2015. The Agatons' suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and first reported by ABC News last week, accused the state bar of "shielding and protecting Girardi and Girardi Keese" from discipline despite fielding dozens of ethical complaints about the indicted lawyer dating back decades. "This case exposes the rampant corruption at the State Bar of California and targets the incestuous relationship between Tom Girardi and the Girardi Keese law firm on the one hand, and the State Bar of California and its employees and staff on the other hand," the complaint read. The suit includes more details from several cases revealed in internal reports released by State Bar trustees showing Girardi showered former agency board members and employees with gifts, travel and meals even as he was targeted with client complaints alleging mishandling of client funds. Had the State Bar carried out its mission of protecting the public, this complaint, and many others like it, would not be necessary, according to the complaint filed by the New York law firm Osborn Law. "But the State Bar did not put the public first. Instead, while Girardi was hard at work defrauding his clients and co-counsel, State Bar officials were gallivanting around the country in Girardi's private jet, staying at luxury hotels in Las Vegas, enjoying fine dining at expensive private clubs, attending lavish holiday parties with Hollywood entertainers, or attending concerts and other events, all paid for by Girardi and his firm and all while employed by the State Bar," the complaint charged. In early 2023, the State Bar shared publicly redacted versions of the two reports that together revealed how Girardi used money and influence to evade discipline, and how past members of the State Bar's Board, leadership and staff engaged in shocking ethical lapses and wrongdoing, according to the State Bar 2022 Annual Report. Although Girardi has been disbarred, he appears to be mentally incapacitated to some degree and he has vanished from the public eye, the State Bar continues to refuse to make unredacted copies of either report available to the public on privacy grounds, according to the complaint. "Whatever privacy concerns exist are far outweighed by the public's right to know what happened – not just generally, but specifically, " the complaint continued. Seven former bar executives and leaders: Joe Dunn, Tom Layton, Howard Miller, John Noonen, Murray Greenberg, Mike Nisperos and Richard Platel are also defendants in the lawsuit along with the State Bar. The State Bar could not be reached for comment but told Law.com it had not been served as of last September 11, 2023 afternoon and declined to comment on its allegations. "As laid bare in this complaint, Girardi's ability to establish these cozy relationships allowed him to avoid investigation and punishment," the suit stated. "For their part, the State Bar employees and officials knew that these relationships were improper, but they pursued them anyway." [GN] CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Securities Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Charles Schwab Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on February 2, 2023, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants' motion, stayed a securities class action lawsuit filed in the on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co), pending the outcome of arbitration, and denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification as moot. Ths Crago Order routing litigation, filed on July 13, 2016, alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 30, 2021, and in a decision on October 27, 2021, the court denied the motion and held that certification of a class action is inappropriate. Plaintiffs sought review of the order denying class certification by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, which was denied. On September 23, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification and defendants moved to compel plaintiffs' case to arbitration. The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding company. CSC engages, through its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as Schwab or the Company), in wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and financial advisory services. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Officials Consider Settlement Payout Ideas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cathy Lenny at westnewsmagazine.com reports that Wildwood city officials already have a number of ideas about how to spend the $1 million payout it received as a result of the class action lawsuit brought against Charter Communications. The lawsuit was for gross receipt tax collections for phone services that Charter provides to its customers. This resulted in $1.01 million in unbudgeted revenue – a culmination of payments paid under protest for several years and a large settlement amount received in April, said City Administrator Tom Lee. One option is to give homeowners a rebate of $90 each to credit toward their trash services. Recently, two new trash haulers were hired in the city with rates that were significantly higher than before. "This unexpected recovery we just received is our residents' money and we're operating with a balanced budget," Mayor Jim Bowlin said. "Giving their money to them demonstrates our commitment to smaller, efficient government during this period of high inflation that's hurting everyone." While Bowlin had noted in a memo to the City Council that improvements to city hall are needed, he later stressed that "any consideration of the building, internet, etc. is a separate matter with funding from other sources." In the memo, Bowlin wrote, "Our municipal building is now several years old, and our Town Center is being further developed. To plan for the future, it would be advisable for us to examine the viability of the current building and its location on both a short and long-term basis." To explore this option further, an ad hoc committee was created. Bowlin said the committee will look at short-term and long-term issues and options regarding the municipal building. The new committee comprised five council members was approved during that body's Sept. 11 work session. One of the issues that needs to be addressed is the city hall's HVAC system, which recently stopped working on the second floor. In discussing the settlement funds, council member Rob Rambaud (Ward 6) suggested setting aside funds for Phase 2 of the citywide internet project. Phase 1 cost $6.75 million to service 2,025 homes and at least 471 additional homes still need service; it would cost an estimated $2 million, Lee said. A final option would be to transfer the money to the ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) fund account already in existence. A report on the various options will be brought back before the council at its Oct. 9 meeting. [GN] COMMONWEALTH BANK: $50M Deal in Consumer Credit Suit Gets OK ------------------------------------------------------------ moneymanagement.com.au reports that the Federal Court has approved Commonwealth Bank's $50 million settlement in the consumer credit insurance class action. Justice Michael O'Bryan accepted the settlement reached by CBA, the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society and AIA Australia last November, bringing an end to Slater and Gordon's consumer credit insurance class action against three of Australia's big banks. Sept. 15, Justice O'Bryan said he was "not satisfied" with Slater's fee estimates in a past hearing but has since accepted affidavit material from an employed solicitor. "Having received that additional material and considered that additional material, I am satisfied the settlement should be approved and distribution of the settlement funds as proposed by the applicant should also be approved," Justice O'Bryan said. "Can I commend all parties on achieving a successful resolution of the proceedings and settlement of the proceedings." Justice O'Bryan signed off on ANZ's $47 million settlement earlier this month and Westpac's $29 million settlement in June. Slaters brought the class actions against the three major banks on behalf of up to one million customers who were allegedly sold the insurance despite not consenting or not being able to make a claim. In CBA's case, Slater's alleged 700,000 group members had been sold the allegedly worthless CreditCard Plus policy and Loan Protection policy - both distributed by Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society - between 1 January 2010 and 7 March 2018. Group members alleged they had acquired at least one of the insurance policies and suffered loss or damage as a result. The firm alleged some customers were illegible to make a claim due to being unemployed or having pre-existing health conditions or disabilities when they took out the insurance. While some group members did not give their consent to purchase the insurance, others were allegedly not informed it was optional and some customers were not informed they would be charged for it. At the time the settlement was agreed, without admission of any wrongdoing, senior associate Alex Blennerhassett said the firm was pleased that eligible customers would benefit. "Class actions are one way people can take on big corporations, including Australia's Big Four banks," Blennerhassett said. Lead plaintiff in the CBA class action, Kristy Fordham, said she was sold Loan Protection without requesting it and her pre-existing health conditions meant she was ineligible to claim the main benefits. Fordham said she was glad the legal fight was now over. "I believe the bank knew full well that we couldn't benefit from their products, but they deliberately sold them to us anyway," she said. "We were all so vulnerable or else we wouldn't have needed loans from them in the first place, yet they took advantage of that, in my opinion. It was such behaviour that they made a lot of money from, so it's about time those of us affected get compensated." [GN] COWHAND SADDLERY: Guillot Seeks FLSA Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN GUILLOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COWHAND SADDLERY, LLC d/b/a COWHAND SERVICES, LLC d/b/a COWHAND SERVICES, Case No. 6:23-cv-00044-H (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a FLSA collective certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "Current and former workers employed by, or working on behalf of, Cowhand Saddlery, LLC d/b/a Cowhand Services as independent contractors in the United States at any time from three years prior to the date the Order of conditional certification is entered, to the present, who were paid a day rate." The Parties agree that, by Cowhand's consent to FLSA collective certification, Cowhand does not waive its right to argue any defenses that it may have to the substantive claims in this lawsuit. Likewise, the Parties agree that, by Cowhand's consent to FLSA collective certification, Cowhand does not waive any argument that the FLSA collective should be decertified. The Parties have further agreed to and propose the schedule and terms set forth in the attached Proposed Order, in order to provide adequate and accurate notice of this lawsuit to the Putative Collective Members. A copy of the Parities' motion dated Sept. 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RFFWEy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law The Defendants are represented by: Daniel D. Pipitone, Esq. MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR 700 Milam Street, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-4060 Facsimile: (713) 222-1475 E-mail: dpipitone@munsch.com CS DISCO: Law Firms Investigate Possible Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ legaltechnology.com reports that two US-based securities class action law firms have announced that they are launching investigations into DISCO after the NYSE-listed eDiscovery vendor announced on September 11 that CEO and founder Kiwi Camara is to step down, sending its stocks plummeting in value. National shareholder rights litigation firm The Schall Law Firm announced on 12 September that it is acting on behalf of investors to investigate whether DISCO, incorporated as CS Disco, has committed violations of US securities laws. Specifically, it is launching an investigation into whether DISCO "issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors." The Schall Law Firm is asking that shareholders who suffered a loss to contact them. September 13 Boston-headquartered class action law firm Berman Tabacco said that it is also "investigating potential securities law violations by CS Disco", saying: "Shares of CS Disco are down 26% in early trading after the company's co-founder and CEO, Kiwi Camara, announced he will step down as the chief executive and as a member of the board." Berman Tabacco is also encouraging anyone who purchased shares of CS Disco and has suffered losses or has information concerning the investigation to contact them. DISCO announced on 11 September that Scott Hill will take over from Camara as interim CEO while the board of directors searches for a permanent successor.[GN] DAVE INC: To Settle Stoffers Action Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Dave Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is currently in the process of settling the case captioned "Stoffers v. Dave Inc.," (September 16, 2020, Cal. Sup.) This is a purported class action lawsuit filed in connection with a July 2020 data breach. Dave Inc. is a financial services company based in Los Angeles, California. It offers cash advances through its flagship 0% interest "ExtraCash" product, a digital checking account. and "ExtraCash" which allows members to advance funds to their account and avoid a fee altogether. DIGITAL TURBINE: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Digital Turbine, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on July 19, 2023, the Western District Court of Texas granted the company's motion to dismiss consolidated case captioned "In re Digital Turbine, Inc. Securities Litigation" (Case No. 1:22-cv-00550-DAE). On June 6, 2022 and July 21, 2022, stockholders of the company filed class action complaints against the company and certain of its officers in the Western District of Texas related to Digital Turbine, Inc.'s announcement in May 2022 that it would restate some of its financial results. The claims allege violations of certain federal securities laws. Digital Turbine, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is an independent mobile growth platform that levels up the landscape for advertisers, publishers, carriers, and device original equipment manufacturers that offers end-to-end products and solutions leveraging proprietary technology to all participants in the mobile application ecosystem, enabling brand discovery and advertising, user acquisition and engagement, and operational efficiency for advertisers. DOCUSIGN INC: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD R. WESTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, CYNTHIA GAYLOR, and LOREN ALHADEFF, Case No. 3:22-cv-00824-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiffs request that the Court: (i) certify the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (ii) appoint Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appoint Labaton Sucharow as Class Counsel, and Kessler Topaz as Liaison Counsel on behalf of the Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g); and (iv) grant Lead Plaintiffs any such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The proposed Class is defined as: "All persons and entities who or which, during the period from June 4, 2020 through June 9, 2022, inclusive, purchased the publicly traded common stock of DocuSign and were damaged thereby." Lead Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and, pursuant to Rule 23(g), appointing Lead Counsel Labaton Sucharow as Class Counsel, and Kessler Topaz as Liaison Counsel on behalf of the Class. DocuSign is an American company headquartered in San Francisco, California, that allows organizations to manage electronic agreements. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46x1vvn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com - and - Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Irina Vasilchenko, Esq. Lisa Strejlau, Esq. David Saldamando, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com ivasilchenko@labaton.com lstrejlau@labaton.com dsaldamando@labaton.com ECUASUR WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Calix Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- KATERIN YISSEL CALIX; and JENNIFFER HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECUASUR WIRELESS INC., d/b/a BOOST MOBILE; ELLTEL WIRELESS LLC, d/b/a BOOST MOBILE; HQ5 WIRELESS INC., d/b/a BOOST MOBILE; and JOSE FREDY QUEZADA a/k/a JOSE F. QUEZADA PINZON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12140 (D. Mass., Sept. 19, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as sales representatives. ECUASUR WIRELESS INC. owns and operates wireless service and cell-phone retail stores doing business as Boost Mobile. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caitlin Duffy, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Franklin Street, Floor 26 Boston, MA 01002 Telephone: (617) 419-0142 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 EDDIE V'S HOLDINGS: Edgar Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming -------------------------------------------------------------- ESSICA EDGAR, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. EDDIE V'S HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a EDDIE V'S PRIME SEAFOOD, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01000 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 20, 2023) seek to recover all tips kept by the Defendants, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Edgar was employed by the Defendant as a server. EDDIE V'S HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a EDDIE V'S PRIME SEAFOOD is a prime quality seafood restaurant providing you with the finest fresh seafood & prime steaks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com ELI LILLY & CO: Faces MSP Suit Over Pharmacy Benefit Manager Issue ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that the company, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and in some matters certain pharmacy benefit managers, was named in the case captioned "MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al." in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey filed in 2018. Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of Indianapolis, IN. ELI LILLY AND CO: Faces Antitrust Suit in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that the company, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and in some matters certain pharmacy benefit managers, was named in "In re Insulin Pricing Litigation." This putative consumer class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey back in 2017 is related to insulin pricing that assert various theories, including consumer protection, fraud, false advertising, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statutes, deceptive trade practices, antitrust, and unfair competition claims. Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of Indianapolis, IN. ELI LILLY AND CO: Faces FWK Suit Over Insulin Pricing ----------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that the company, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, was named in a putative class action brought by direct purchasers of insulin captioned "FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in 2020. Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of Indianapolis, IN. ELI LILLY AND CO: Faces Sistema Integrado Insulin Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that the company is facing case captioned "Sistema Integrado De Salud Del Oeste, LLC et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, filed in 2023). Eli Lilly and Company is a pharmaceutical company based out of Indianapolis, IN. ELMORE COUNTY, ID: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brizzi Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN BRIZZI; ERIC BROWN; CASEY BURNS; NICHOLAS CODIGA; BRYCE DARNELL; MICHAEL DENISON; BRIAN FIELDS; BRITTNY HYDE; ERIK JOHNSON; DAVID MEADOWS; TAARAN MOORE; SHILO OTTAWAY; JEREMIAH POPE; ADAM SEARLS; JACOB SMITH; ASHLEY STANKO; JOSH STRONG; CURTIS TETI; and CHAD WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. ELMORE COUNTY, IDAHO; BUD CORBUS, in his individual and official capacities; AL HOFER, in his individual and official capacities; and CRYSTAL RODGERS, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00412-REP (D. Idaho., Sept. 18, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff. ELMORE COUNTY is a county in the U.S. state of Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Boyd J. Hawkins, Esq. MAUK MILLER & HAWKINS, PLLC 600 E. Riverpark Lane, Suite 210 Boise, ID 83706 Email: boyd@idahojustice.com office@idahojustice.com FLUENT INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Pepper --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY PEPPER, et al., v. FLUENT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06581-JGK-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management 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 sections 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely. Fluent is a performance marketing company with an expertise in creating meaningful connections between consumers and brands. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RyjI7k at no extra charge.[CC] FREEDOM FOREVER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Moore Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- FLOYD STEVE BALES; and EDWARD NEWMAN JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FREEDOM FOREVER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01899 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant' practice of making unsolicited calls. FREEDOM FOREVER, LLC is a residential solar installation company that partners with solar sales companies in the solar industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Email: Rachel@kaufmanpa.com FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Fares' Ad ------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Frontier Airlines in July over claims the company misled consumers into believing they were purchasing tickets for a lower price than reality and failed to be upfront about its bag fees. Frontier has been accused of not clearly defining the fee structure for personal items, checked and carry-on baggage at the time of purchase. "Frontier's bait-and-switch and 'gotcha' tactics are designed to confuse, trick and trap consumers to the public's detriment," the Frontier class action states. The consumer behind the class action lawsuit argues Frontier's fee structure is even more unclear when a purchase is made with a third-party vendor. In other Frontier news, a consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against the airline last month, arguing it falsely advertises its All You Can Fly Pass will allow a traveler to fly as much as they want using a single ticket. The consumer behind the complaint argues individuals who purchase Frontier's All You Can Fly Pass are unable to use it because the airline's booking system becomes inoperable when a passholder attempts to book a flight. "As with many things that sound too good to be true, they usually are," the Frontier class action states. Frontier is accused of not granting refunds for the pass, which the plaintiff purchased for $599 in November 2022, despite the failed booking attempts. [GN] FUELING BRAINS: Full Refunds in Outbreak-Hit Daycares Not Assured ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Dryden at CBC News reports that a number of Calgary parents say they're frustrated that the company that runs a series of daycares hit by an E. coli outbreak have yet to commit to offering full refunds for the month of September, instead offering credits for days affected by the closure. That doesn't go far enough for parents who are no longer comfortable sending their children to the campuses, or for those who have faced financial impacts as a result of the outbreak. Since the outbreak of the shiga toxin-producing E. coli was declared on Sept. 4, the number of confirmed cases has soared to 310. Twenty children have the condition known as hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), and seven are on dialysis. Katie McLean's daughter is nearly two years old and attended the Fueling Brains Academy located in the McKnight neighbourhood. Her daughter was hospitalized, and was discharged. McLean said she has talked to her centre director, who advised her that the organization was meeting to discuss each specific family's needs -- but there has been no answer on a full refund yet, with only a credit offered for the days of the closure so far. But she said the credit is not helpful for those who don't plan to return. "What are we going to do with that credit? Parents that have been out of work, like myself all week, had to cancel all of my clients as an independent contractor," McLean said. "I just lost 100 per cent of my income. I could really use that credit in the form of a refund, so that we would actually have the money in our pockets right now." McLean said parents are charged at the end of each month for the subsequent month, meaning they were charged for September on Aug. 31. Alberta Health Services declared an outbreak of E. coli on Sept. 4. Calgary parent Maria Prado's four-year-old son was also in hospital, but has since been discharged. After the experience, Prado's family decided they would not send him back to the daycare. She sent an email on Sept. 9, asking for termination immediately and to be refunded, according to Prado. But they didn't hear back until Sept. 13, with the company telling Prado they would look into it. "It adds to the stress we've been going through," Prado said. In a statement to CBC News, Kent Hehr, the vice-president of Fueling Brains, said communicating with families has been the company's priority. He added the company has been sending out daily parent and staff messages to keep its community informed. "Families affected by the closures will receive credits for the days impacted and further tuition solutions are being addressed on a case-by-case basis," he wrote in an email. Alberta's chief medical officer of health shared a kitchen safety inspection report, which had found major issues at a shared kitchen at KidsU Centennial - Fueling Minds Inc., used by several daycares across the city. The inspections took place on Sept. 5. Class-action Lawsuit On Sept. 8, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Fueling Brains by Cuming & Gillespie, a personal injury law firm located in downtown Calgary. The lawsuit, which has yet to be certified, lists a parent and her infant daughter as plaintiffs. It alleges that illnesses resulted out of "the negligent, unsanitary and unsafe food storage, preparation and handling practices of the defendants." It seeks damages of no less than $150,000 per class member. The allegations have not been proven in court. Craig Gillespie, a partner at Cuming & Gillespie, said the firm had been approached by "a number of families" with concerns. In his statement, Hehr did not respond directly to a request for comment about the class-action lawsuit. [GN] G11 SECURITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Diaz Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- URIEL DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G11 SECURITY, INC.; and LISA TRIPLETT, Case No. 1:23-cv-04261-VMC (N.D. Ga., Sept. 20, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a security guard. G11 SECURITY, INC. provides on-site security guard and remotely monitored video surveillance services in residential, commercial and retail sectors, for individuals, private business and government. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com GAME TIME: Court Dismisses Helems Suit w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE HELEMS, on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. GAME TIME SUPPLEMENTS, LLC dba RSP NUTRITION, a Florida corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-01122-L-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Lorenz entered an order granting the motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend. The lack of particularized factual allegations that he actually relied on the caloric statements prior to purchase is insufficient to meet the heightened pleading standard for a fraud claim under CLRA, UCL, or FAL. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted on these claims. The Plaintiff Jesse Helems ordered RSP Nutrition's AminoLean Pre-Workout powder (AminoLean) blackberry pomegranate flavor on or about May 13, 2022. The Plaintiff purchased AminoLean in order to maintain the substantial weight loss he achieved in 2016 when he dropped 160 pounds out of 300 through cardio-based fitness and careful tracking of his daily caloric intake. RSP Nutrition manufactures "pre-workout" nutritional powders including AminoLean. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rjI8XL at no extra charge.[CC] GENEDX HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------- GeneDx Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on September 7, 2022 against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed on January 30, 2023. As amended, the complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between March 14, 2022 and August 15, 2022. The complaint purports to allege that defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. GeneDx Holdings Corp. through its subsidiaries Sema4 OpCo, Inc., formerly Mount Sinai Genomics Inc. and GeneDx, LLC, provides genomics-related diagnostic and information services and pursues genomics medical research. It provides a variety of genetic diagnostic tests, and screening solutions, and information with a focus on pediatrics, rare diseases for children and adults, and hereditary cancer screening. GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Modified Class Cert. Order in Jefferson --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled as RILLA JEFFERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-TM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis. The Plaintiff filed this case with the Court on Aug. 7, 2020, alleging that she began to experience a Shift-to-Park defect shortly after she purchased a new 2017 GMC Acadia. She brings this action asserting breach of express warranty under Tennessee law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and breach of contract under Tennessee law. On October 29, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted that Motion in part, striking the Plaintiff's request for punitive damages and dismissing her implied warranty of merchantability claim. The Defendant filed an Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint on Oct. 18, 2021. The Parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the instant case on May 25, 2022. The Parties moved the Court to stay this case for 90 days, or until the resolution of the summary judgment and class certification motions, which was then outstanding in Napoli-Bosse v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 18-cv-1720-MPS (D. Conn). The motions in Napoli-Bosse were resolved on Aug. 22, 2022. The Parties then jointly moved the Court to lift the stay in the instant case on Sept. 14, 2022. The Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion to Lift Stay on Sept. 15, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Class on Nov. 2, 2022. The Plaintiff's Motion was filed with a Memorandum of Law, the Declaration of Sergei Lemberg, and the Declaration of Joshua Markovitz. The Plaintiff also filed 23 exhibits along with her Motion. She additionally filed unredacted, sealed copies of her Memorandum of Law and of Exhibit 1. The Defendant filed a Response on Dec. 9, 2022. That Response was filed with the Declaration of Joseph J. Orzano, several excerpts from depositions, and the Complaint in Napoli-Bosse v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 18-cv-1720-MPS (D. Conn). The Plaintiff filed a Reply on Jan. 10, 2023. The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on November 22, 2022. The Defendant's Motion was filed with a Memorandum of Law in Support, a Statement of Undisputed Facts, the Declaration of Joseph J. Orzano, and several excerpts from depositions. The Plaintiff filed a Response on Jan. 10, 2023. The Defendant filed a Reply on Jan. 31, 2023. On May 11, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's November 3, 2022 Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant requested reconsideration of that portion of the Court's Order that addressed class certification. Plaintiff Jefferson filed a Response in Opposition on June 7, 2023. The Defendant filed a Reply on June 11, 2023. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jon P. McCalla of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order on August 31, 2023 modifying the Court's prior order regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Judge McCalla found that modification of the Court's prior Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is appropriate. The Defendant moved the Court to reconsider its prior order as the class definition the Court crafted raised legal questions that the Defendant did not have the opportunity to raise and the Court has not had the opportunity to consider. In modifying its prior Order, the Court no longer adopted a "new" class definition, instead adopting the class definition that the Defendant has already opposed and briefed. The Court's prior Order, therefore, stands, excepting the portions that address the fail-safe class question and the class definition itself, which are modified by the instant Order. The class definition is as follows: (1) Initial purchasers and lessees of new 'class vehicles,' 2017-18 GMC Acadias, who purchased or leased their vehicles in Tennessee; and who (2) sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the STP Issue during the warranty period; and who (3) were not provided with either a silicon-free replacement shifter assembly or silicon-free shifter control wire harness at no charge. The appellate case is captioned as In re: General Motors, LLC, Case No. 23-0509, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 14, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner GENERAL MOTORS, LLC is represented by: James C. McGrath, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 - and - Joseph J. Orzano, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Plaintiff-Respondent RILLA JEFFERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Susan S. Lafferty, Esq. LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. 1321 Murfreesboro Pike Suite 521 Nashville, TN 37217 Telephone: (615) 492-1199 - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. LEMBERG LAW 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 GREYSTAR REAL: Brooks Sues Over Illegal Security Deposit Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- RONNIE BROOKS; LAURA SIEGEL; TIFFANY VINSON; PHILIP MCGILL; ANNIE CASTNER; CHERELLE BLOUNT; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC; 100 ALTAIR, LLC; 1066 MARKET, LLC; 1101 NORTH MAIN, LLC; 111 W. 7 OWNER LLC; 1221 JONES, LLC; 12444 VENICE INVESTMENTS, LP; 1318 SECOND STREET ASSOCIATES; 1318 SECOND STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC; 140 CENTER STREET LLC; 1471 EIGHTH AVENUE, LLC; 15700 LASSELLE CA LP; 1700 WEBSTER, LLC, a Oregon Limited Liability Company; 171 W JULIAN STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC; 1844 MARKET STREET, LLC; 200 OCEAN BOULEVARD LLC 207 SEASIDE PARTNERS, LLC; 22751 EL PRADO LLC; 2900 WILSHIRE, LLC; 3093 BROADWAY HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; 3100 VAN BUREN BOULEVARD APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC; 3364 HONEYBROK WAY GROUND OWNER LP; 437 HILL HIGHRISE LLC; 437 HILL MIDRISE, LLC; 4700 TELEGRAPH AVENUE LP; 471 26TH STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC; 4767 MOORPARK LLC; 4900 LOS FELIZ INVESTORS LLC; 515 COLORADO, LLC; 5445 LANKERSHIM BOULEVARD APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC; 570 21ST STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC; 600 S SPRING OWNER LLC; 6606 VARIEL AVE, LLC; 707 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, LP; 7450 NORTHROP DRIVE APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC; 752 SOUTH MAIN PROPERTY LLC; 885 WOODSIDE, LLC; 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC; ADAGIO PARTNERS, L.P.; AEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.; a Delaware Limited Partnership; AHDOUT DEBORAH, an individual; ALLEGIANT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC; a California limited liability company; ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL, LLC; an Arizona Limited Liability Company; ALPHA Z SAN JOSE APT 1 LLC; AMCAL EQUITIES LLC; a California Limited Liability Company; AMCAL HAYWARD LLC; AMFP VI WINDSCAPE LLC; ANGULO BEATRIZ, an individual; ANNA ZUCKER, an individual; ANSON APARTMENTS LLC; ANTHEIA, LP; APARTMENTS AT LITTLE ITALY, LLC; ASB GIBSON SANTA MONICA LLC; ASB REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, an unknown entity; ASMBB VERMONT CA, LLC ; ASPECT ACQUISITION LLC; AUTUMN SPRINGS RE INVESTORS, L.P.; AV8 DT, LLC; AVINO DEL, LLC; AXIS FEE OWNER LLC; B9 MF 12350 DEL AMO LLC; B9 MF 23639 NEWHALL LLC; B9 MF 23645 MEADOWRIDGE LLC; B9 MF HIGHLANDS GT OWNER LLC; BAKER BLOCK ASSOCIATES, L.P.; BAY MEADOWS RES 1 INVESTORS, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BAY MEADOWS RES 4 INVESTORS, LLC; BAY MEADOWS TOWN SQUARE INVESTORS, LLC; BAY VIEW SD, LLC; BCM 625 BROADWAY, LLC; BEATRIZ ANGULO LIVING TRUST, an unknown entity; BEHRINGER HARVARD ACAPPELLA LP, a business entity of form unknown; BEHRINGER HARVARD MSSION OWNER; BEHRINGER HARVARD NOHO LLC; BEHRINGER HARVARD PACIFICA PROJECT OWNER LP; BEHRINGER HARVARD REDWOOD; BEHRINGER HARVARD SAN SEBASTIAN LP; BEL BROOK APARTMENTS2 LLC; BELL FUND VII VALENCIA LLC; BELLA TERRA DEL, LLC; BENEDICT CANYON EQUITIES, INC; ; BERE ISLAND PROPERTIES I LLC; BERHRINGER HARVARD CALYPSO LP; BERKELEY VQOF II SPE, LLC; BISCAYNE ST TIC OWNER I LLC; BISCAYNE ST TIC OWNER II LLC; BLAI LP; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, an unknown business entity; BOARDWALK 1810, LLC; BPP ALPHABET MF SHERMAN CIRCLE LLC; BRAD COX, an individual;; BRADDOCK & LOGAN GROUP, an unknown entity; BRE ALMADEA I MF PROPERTY OWNER LLC; BRE PIPER MF TIDES CA LLC; BRE SILVER MF 1555 CA LLC; BRE SILVER MF CANYON CREST CA LLC; BRE SILVER MF NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA LLC; BRE SILVER MF ROOSEVELT CA LLC; BREIT MF CAMPANULA WAY; BREIT MF DAY STREET, LLC; BREIT MF PROMENADE TERRACE, LLC; BREIT MF TELEGRAPH ROAD LLC; BREIT SH BERKELEY LLC; BREIT SH UNIVERSITY VILLAGE TOWERS LLC; BRENTWOOD RE INVESTORS LLC; BRETT WHITEHEAD, an individual; BROADSTONE FAIRFAX LLC; BROADSTONE HERITAGE ALLIANCE, LLC; BROADSTONE LAGUNA NIGUEL ALLIANCE, LLC; BROADSTONE LOS FELIZ OWNER, LLC; BROADSTONE MAKERS QUARTER, LP; BROADSTONE ON BROADWAY, LLC; BROOKSIDE RE INVESTORS LP; BRYANT STREET HOLDINGS LLC; BURBANK MEDIA VILLAGE, LLC; BWC I LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; CANTERRA APARTMENTS LLC; CANYON WOODS OWNERS ASSOCIATION I, a California Nonprofit Corporation; CAPE MAY TEMECULA APARTMENTS, LLC; CARLSBAD VILLAGE II, LLC; CARMEL MOUNTAIN APARTMENTS, INC.; CARMEL PARTNERS, an unknown business entity; CARMEL TERRACE, L.P.; CARMEN APARTMENT PARTNERS TIC I LLC; CASA RUIZ DEL, LLC; CASA VALLECITOS, LTD; CASENTINI STREET APARTMENTS, LLC; CASOLEIL DEL, LLC; CATHEDRAL HILL ASSOCIATES, L.P.; CENTRAL PARK PARTNERS, L.P.; CG-USA SIMI VALLEY LP; CH REALTY IX/MF SAN DIEGO EAGLE GLEN OWNER GP, L.L.C.; CHADWICH LF OWNER LLC, an unknown business entity; CHULA VISTA APARTMENTS LLC; CI-GS HILLCREST LLC; CIRCA 1200 LLC; CIVIC SQUARE, LLC; CLI ATLAS ASHTON LLC; CLPF - BALBOA PARK, L.P.; CLPF ARTIST WALK LP; CLPF CRESCENT PARK LP; CLPF GRP SUNNYVALE KIFER LLC; CLPF TOWER AT HOLLYWOOD HILLS LP; CONTRA COSTA RE INVESTORS, LLC; CORTE BELLA FEE OWNER LLC; CP III RINCON TOWERS, INC., a Colorado Stock Corporation; CP V JLS, LLC; CP V WALNUT, LLC; CP VI ADMIRALS COVE, LLC; CP VI FRANKLIN, LLC; CP VII ONE38, LLC; CPI SOFIA OWNER, L.L.C.; CPI-GREP AA I BUENA VIDA OWNER, L.L.C.; CR AIRWAY GARDENS, LLC; CR LUXE COMMUNITIES, LLC; CR WESTWOOD COMMUNITIES, LLC; CRP & BRANDYWINE HAWTHRONE APARTMENTS OWNER, an unknown business entity; CRP/THC MISSION GORGE WEST I OWNER, L.L.C.; CRP-GREP VENTURA 140 OWNER, L.L.C.; CV MENLO PARK, LLC; CYPRESS POINT RE INVESTORS LLC; CYPRESS SANDS APARTMENT PARTNERS, LLC; DUARTE MULTIFAMILY, LLC; DWIGHT WAY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER, LLC; EAST PACIFIC PROPERTIES LLC; EFL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.; ENCANTO APARTMENT HOMES, LLC; EXPO LINE OWNER, LLC; FHF I AMERIGE POINTE, LLC; FHF I THE HEIGHTS, LLC; FILLMORE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LP; FLOIT PROPERTIES INC., an unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN PLAZA INVESTORS LP; FRIT SAN JOSE TOWN & COUNTRY VIL LLC; FRIT SAN JOSE TOWN AND COUNTRY VILLAGE, LLC; FSTAR 1637 LLC; FV DEL 5, LLC; GAR REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, ; GDCV CULVER CITY, LLC; GDCV II BP VILLAGE C-2 REIT, LLC; GDCV II WEST LA 135, LLC; GDCV MARKET STREET 87, LLC; GDCV PASADENA 201, LLC; GEDR HILLSIDE, LLC; GEP X ISLA VISTA LLC; GEP XI Vista Point, LLC; GFP OCEANSIDE BLOCK 18, LLC; GFP OCEANSIDE BLOCK 19, LLC; GG LA FIGUEROA , LLC; GGIF GLENDALE, LLC; GGIF VIANO, LLC; GOLDEN GATEWAY CENTER SPE, LLC; GREENFIELD VILLAGE DEL, LLC; GREENLAND US HOLDINGS INC; GREG R NEVILLE, an individual; GROSVENOR DEL REY CORPORATION; GS 1401 MISSION PROJECT OWNER, LLC; GS AA RIVERWALK OWNER, LLC; GS AA SAN MARCOS OWNER, LLC; GS ARGENTA PROJECT OWNER, LLC; GS Corona, LLC; GS SANTA FE APARTMENTS, L.P; GS TULLY ROAD, LLC; GSIC II ALMADEN OWNER, LP; GSIC II CUCAMONGA OWNER, LP; GSIC II PALOS VERDES OWNER, LP; GSIC II PINE OWNER, LP; GSIC II STONERIDGE OWNER, LP; GSIC II SUNNYVALE OWNER, LP; GSIC II WILSHIRE OWNER, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; GUGV ARTS DISTRICT LA PROPERTY OWNING LLC; GW4 LLC; HARBOR PARK APARTMENTS, LP; Harold Wang, an individual; HAYWARD 544, LLC; HDO4, LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability Company; HERCULES BLOCK Q&R DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LP; HESPERIA APARTMENTS, LLC; HIGBY JV, LLC; HOLLYWOOD 180 HOLDCO, LLC; HOMES ON LOCUST, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company; HONEYBROOK WAY GROUND OWNER LP; Howard Heitner, an individual; HPI 919 BAYSIDE LLC; ICON EDEN PLAZA OWNER POOL 2, LLC; ICRE LAGUNA CLUB, LLC; IDEAL LINCOLN LLC; INL FAIRWAY VIEW 2012, LLC; IRONWOOD SOUTH DJT, LLC; IRVINE HIGHRISE RESIDENTIAL LLC; IVY STATION LLC; JACK LONDON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT OAKLAND OWNER LLC; JADE ENTERPRISES, an unknown business entity; JEFFERSON AT STADIUM PARK-PHASE B OWNER, LLC; JEREMY MEREDITH, an individual; JESUS LLC, an unknown business entity; JIM ANDERSEN, an individual; JOAN E. TAPPER, an individual; JTJ APARTMENT INVESTORS, LLC; K & M SOUTH BERKELEY LLC; K 46, LLC; K1 THIRTEENTH ST SD LLC; KENSINGTON APARTMENTS, LP; KENTWOOD INVESTORS; KILROY REALTY FINANCE PARTNERSHIP, L.P.; KR ACADMY LLC; KR HOLLYWOOD, LLC; KW MONTCLAIR, LLC; KW SANTA CLARITA TOWNHOMES LLC; KW WESTMORELAND TIC, LLC; LA APT. 1, LLC; LA FLOWER STREET APARTMENTS LP; LA PLAZA VILLAGE, LLC; LAFAYETTE APARTMENT ASSOCIATES LP, an unknown business entity; LAFAYETTE APT ASSOCIATES LP; LAKEVIEW 88, LLC; LANDING APARTMENTS DEL, LLC; LATIGO THOUSAND OAKS LLC; Lauren Boyd, an individual; LAYLA PROPERTIES, LLC; Lee M Kort, an individual; LEGACY APARTMENTS DEL, LLC; LEGACY PARTNERS CORPORATE, INC., a California Stock Corporation; LENNAR COMMUNITIES, INC.; ; LIAO COMMERCIAL DE LACEY AVE LLC; LIFE ILLUMINATED LLC; LINCOLN 1641 LLC; LIPT SAN DIEGO, INC.; LIVCOR LLC; LOFTS 655 HOLDCO LLC; LOFTS 677 HOLDCO LLC; LOFTS 707 HOLDCO LLC; LOS FELIZ INVESTORS, LLC; LOWE ENTERPRISES REAL ESTATE GROUP, ; LPF OVERLOOK, INC.; LT SACRAMENTO MF, LLC; LUGANO APARTMENTS PR III LLC; LUXE PASADENA LLC; MADISON HILLS PROPERTY OWNER LLC; MADISON-MF MCCADDEN CA LLC; MADRID APARTMENTS RF, LLC; MAGNOLIA BROADWAY HOLDCO, LLC; MAIN STREET CUPERTINO MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY; MARAZZO REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC; Mariposa Bliss LLC; MARKET DOLORES LLC; MARVIN F. POER AND COMPANY, LLC; Matt Riffle, an individual; MCP ONYX, LLC; MICHAEL SOROCHINCKY, an individual; MIREF WARNER CENTER, LLC; MISSION VALLEY INVESTORS, L.P.; MISSIONS AT RIO VISTA I DEL, LLC; MMIP CURRENT OWNER LLC; MMP ASHTON OWNER, LLC; MMP SOUTH PARK OWNER, LLC; MNCVAD II-HOLLIDAY UNION JV LLC; MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL RENAISSANCE, LP; MONROVIA APARTMENT EPF I LLC; MONTCLAIR ARROW APARTMENTS, L.P. a Delaware Limited Partnership; MONTECITO APARTMENT HOMES; MONTECITO VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P; MONTEREY PENINSULA LAND PARTNERS, LLC; MONTEREY TOWNHOUSE LAND PARTNERS, LLC; MONTESSA MANAGEMENT, LP; MONTIAVO AT BRADLEY SQUARE OWNER LLC; MUSEUM PARK PROPERTY LLC; MVSA VENTURE, LLC; N AVENUE, LP; NAVAJO BLUFFS DEL, LLC; NEW PACIFIC CARLYLE, LLC; NM- JASPER, LLC; NORTHLAND THEA PROTFOLIO LLC; NP PARC CHATEAUX INC; OAK SPRINGS PARTNERS, L.P.; OCEAN AIR, L.P. a California Limited Partnership; OCEAN BREEZE APARTMENT ASSOCIATES, L.P.; OCEANVIEW TERRACE, L.P.; OCOTILLO LA 9001SMB, LLC; OKTOGON SANTA ANA LLC; ONYX EAST APARTMENTS LLC; OSM PROPERTY LLC; PALOMAR STATION DJT (PHASE 1), LLC; PARC ONE DEL, LLC; PARK KIELY REIT INC., a Maryland Stock Corporation; PARKER-SHATTUCK OWNER, LLC; PASO ROBLES MUTLIFAMILY LLC; PATT BARTLETT, an individual; PERSEA SENIOR BORROWER LLC; PKV 1031 SAN DIEGO, LLC; PLAZA APARTMENTS GP LLC; PLAZA APARTMENTS GP LLC; PORT 121 LLC; POTRERO LAUNCH AFFORDABLE LP; PR 1910 UNION LLC; PR 1921 UNION LLC; PR BROADSTONE BERITAGE I LLC; PR BROADSTONE HERITAGE I LLC; PR IMPERIA LOS ANGELES LLC; PROVDENCE II ARTE APARTMENTS LLC; PROVIDENCE CAPITAL GROUP INC, ; PRU JSM TRINO LLC; R & V MANAGEMENT Group, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; RAINCROSS SENIOR PARTNERS, LLC; RAINTREE 1122 UNIVERSITY LLC; RAINTREE 1200 RIVERSIDE LLC; RAINTREE 201 MARSHALL LLC; RAINTREE 2051 THIRD STREET LLC; RAINTREE 973 MARKET MASTER TENANT LLC; RAINTREE CAMPBELL LLC; RAINTREE DEL PRADO LLC; RAINTREE FAIR OAKS LLC; RAINTREE FLOWER FIELDS LLC; RAINTREE FOUNTAIN VALLEY LLC; RAINTREE PARTNERS, an unknown business entity; RAINTREE TRIESTE LLC; RAINTREE VENTURA COLONY LLC; RAINTREE WALNUT CREEK LLC; RANCHO INVESTORS, L.P.; RANCHO PRESIDIO FEE OWNER LLC; RAR2 SUMMERWOOD SARATOGA CA INC; REGENCY DURANT, LLC; REGENCY HILLTOP, LLC; RESCORE 1699 MARKET LLC; RESCORE KOREATOWN, LLC; RESERVE REIT INC., a Maryland Stock Corporation; REVANTAGE CORPORATE SERVICES LLC; RI - BERKELEY, LLC; RICHARD MUNKVOLD, an individual; RISING GLEN DEL, LLC; RIVERSIDE LOCHMOORE DRIVE APARTMENTS, LP; RIVERVIEW DEL I, LLC; RIVUE MCA, LLC; RIZE LKMS, LLC; ROBERT JEANS, an individual; ROC III CA CREEKWOOD, LLC; ROHNERT PARK 668 LP; ROLLING HILLS GARDEN APARTMENTS, LLC; RONISPEN INVESTMENT CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; ROSINA VISTA, L.P.; RRE Bonita Glen Holdings LLC; RREEF AMERICA REIT II CORP DD, a Maryland Stock Corporation; Ryan, LLC, an unknown business entity; SAN RAMON PARK PLACE, LLC; SANTA MARIA LAND PARTNERS LLC; SANTA MARIA MULTIFAMILY LLC; SANTEE VILLAS DEL, LLC; SDCO HILLS OF CORONA, INC.; SEAN BURTON, an individual; SEPULVEDA APTS. LP; SETA APARTMENT HOMES DEL, LLC; SF APT 1, LLC; SHAC 988 ECR APARTMENTS LLC; SHAC DEL MEDIO APARTMENTS LLC; SHAC SOUTH MATHILDA AVENUE LLC; SHADOWRIDGE WOODBEND DEL, LLC; SHEARWATER COMMUNITIES, LLC; SHERIDAN PARK, LLC; SI 26, LLC; SI 32, LLC; SI 40, LLC; SI 51, LLC; SI 52, LLC; SI 61, LLC; SI 66, LLC; SI VII, LLC; SI VIII, LLC; SI XXII, LLC; SIGNATURE POINT MULTI, LLC; SILICON BEACH LIVE, LLC; SM - CLOVERFIELD INVESTORS, LLC; SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY #940, LLC; SOCAL II NOBEL LLC; SOFTWIND POINT DEL, LLC; SOHAY APARTMENTS, LLC; SOLANA RIDGE, L.P.; SOLTERRA AT CIVIC CENTER, LP; SOUTH SEPULVEDA INVESTORS LP; SOUTHBORDER LLC; SP/P CHANNEL POINT, L.L.C.; SRI ELEVEN 601 CAPITOL MALL LLC; ST. MORITZ PROPERTY OWNER LLC; STONE ARBOR APARTMENTS, LLC; SUNBOW PARTNERS, L.P.; SW WESTCHESTER LAND, LLC; SYCAMORE CORE PROPERTY OWNER, LLC; TA SEACREST APARTMENTS, LLC; TA VENICE ON ROSE, LP; TALAVERA RIDGE APARTMENTS, L.P.; TARIGO PROPERTIES LLC; TAVERA, L.P.; T-C LEGACY AT WESTWOOD LLC; T-C REGENTS COURT LLC; TCP-7E, LLC; TEACHERS INS & ANNUITY ASSOCIATION, an unknown business entity; TENNESSEE TRIPLE SEVEN LLC; TERRA FUNDING - NATOMAS, LLC; TERRANO APARTMENT HOMES, LLC; THE 626 ORCHARD LLC; THE ARBORS - LAKE FOREST ASSOCIATES, LLC; THE GRAND SHERMAN OAKS, LLC; THE HANOVER AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire Corporation; THE HAVEN AT COTTLE STATION, LLC, a South Carolina Limited Liability Company; THE HAVEN AT PETALUMA, LLC, a South Carolina Limited Liability Company; THE RESIDENCES AT COTA VERA, LLC; THE WILCO APARTMENTS, LLC; THOMAS LOFARO, an individual; THOMAS WULF, an individual; TILDEN - LAFAYETTE LLC; TILDEN – PARK CROSSING LLC; TIMOTHY VIOLE, an individual; TOWN CENTER APARTMENTS, INC.; TREA HOLLY STREET VILLAGE LLC; TRES PINOS LTD.; TRIO PASADENA, LLC; TROJAN PROPERTY INVESTORS, LLC; TRUAMERICA MULTIFAMILY LLC; TSV APARTMENTS, LLC; TURTLE CREEK RESIDENTIAL LLC; TUSCANY RIDGE TEMECULA DEL, LLC; TUSTIN COVENTRY SENIORS, LP; U.S. REIF SIERRA RIDGE CA LP; UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Stock Corporation; USA PROPERTIES FUND INC, ; VA7 CASA VERDE LLC; VA8 SIERRABROOK LLC; VALENCIA ASSOCIATES, LLC; VAYA WC, LLC; VENTURA TERRACE, LLC; VERANDA ASSOCIATES, LP; VERMONT CA GARDENS LP; VILLAGE SQUARE APARTMENTS DEL, LLC; VISTA CREEKSIDE APARTMENTS, LLC; WEST 27TH, LLC; WEST SACRAMENTO MULTIFAMILY, LLC; WHISPERING OAKS LP; WILSHIRE HOBART 377 PROJECT, LLC; WOODLAND PARK PROPERTY OWNER, LLC; WOODSIDE PARK, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01729-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2023) fails to provide tenants with the disclosures mandated by California law. According to the complaint the Defendants fails to provide sufficient information to tenants to verify the charges, and fails to provide bills, invoices, receipts, or other vendor documentation. As a result of this failure, the Defendants are required to return the entire deposit of any tenant to whom it failed to provide the mandatory, statutory disclosures. The Defendants in bad faith, retain residential security deposits from its tenants in violation of California law. GREYSTAR conceals this bad faith withholding by failing to provide mandatory, statutory disclosures. Through their unlawful policies and practices, the Defendants not only realizes rental income for itself and its clients from tens of thousands of tenants, but also generates a profit by unlawfully retaining the security deposits of its former tenants, charging former tenants amounts against, over and above their security deposits for unsubstantiated work, work not reasonably necessary, work not performed and/or not the obligation of the departing tenant under California law, says the suit. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC provides real estate services. The Company offers property and asset management, financial services, investment advisory, capital renovation, development, and construction services. Greystar Real Estate Partners serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. Tyler J. Belong, Esq. Julie A. Kearns, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG 170 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-4720 Email: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com jkearns@hoguebelonglaw.com - and - Jimmie Davis Parker, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JIMMIE DAVIS PARKER, APC 7812 Wing Flight Court San Diego, CA 92119 Telephone: (619) 887-3300 Email: jdparker@gmail.com HAEMONETICS CORP: Crumpton Sues Over Biometrics Data Mishandling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Haemonetics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is facing a putative class action complaint was filed against the company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Mary Crumpton, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals. Case captioned "Mary Crumpton v. Haemonetics Corporation" (Case No. 1:21-cv-1402) asserts that between June 2017 and August 2018 she donated plasma at a center operated by one of the company's customers, that the center required her to scan her finger print in a scanner that stored her finger print to identify her prior to plasma donation, and that the company's "eQue" donor management software sent her biometric information to a company-owned server to be collected and stored in a manner that violated her rights under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive and equitable relief. In March 2021, the company moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and concurrently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to stay. In March 2022, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but did not address the merits of its other positions. In March 2023, the company filed a second motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending before the court. Haemonetics Corporation is a global healthcare company into blood and plasma component collection, the surgical suite and hospital transfusion services. HAWAII: Naki Files Suit in D. Hawaii ------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Hawaii, et al. The case is styled as Chardell Naki, on behalf of herself & all others similarly situated v. State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, County of Maui, Martin, Peter Klint, Peter Klint Martin, Revocable Trust, Hope Builders Holding LLC, Hope Builders Inc., Hope Builders LLC, KAUAULA LAND COMPANY LLC, KIPA CENTENNIAL LLC, POSELEY, DOUGLAS, Poseley, Donna Anne, James C. Riley Trust, Jeanne A. Riley, Trust, Wainee Land & Homes, LLC, WEST MAUI LAND COMPANY, INC., MAKILA, RANCHES INC., Makila Land Co., LLC, Makila Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc., Mills, as Trustee of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Elliot Kawaiho'olana, Goodyear-Ka'opua, as Trustee of the, Estate of Bernice Pauahi, Jennifer Noelani, Kauhane, Trustee of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Michelle, NOBRIGA, as Trustee of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, ROBERT K.W.H.JV Enterprises, LLC, Decedent, Rose, as Trustee of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Crystal Kauilani, Case No. 2CCV-23-0000278 (D. Hawaii, Sept. 19, 2023). The case type is stated as "Circuit Court Civil." Hawaii -- https://portal.ehawaii.gov/ -- is an island state in the Western United States, about 2,000 miles from the U.S. mainland in the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Scott Kasdan, Esq. Sharla Ann Manley, Esq. Christopher Kunio Hikida, Esq. D. Kaena Horowitz, Esq. HCA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Richards Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH E. RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00998 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 20, 2023) sues the Defendant for the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated personal data from HCA's systems that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly-sensitive data1 of the Plaintiff, and, according to the Defendant, at least 11 million Class Members. The data exposed is made up of 27 million rows of patient information, and includes patients' personal information and certain visit records. The data exposed in the Data Breach has already been made available for sale by the hacker, who posted a sample of the stolen data online on July 5, 2023, the lawsuit alleges. As a result of the Data Breach and exposure of their personally identifying information ("PII") and the protected health information ("PHI") online, the Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer injuries, including loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of their Private Information, the lawsuit asserts. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized disclosure. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for their unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: negligence; breach of express contract; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; bailment; and breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief, including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. Ms. Richards obtained healthcare from HCA through Care Now Urgent Care several times over the last several years. Her Private Information was stored with HCA as a part of its providing healthcare services. HCA is a provider of healthcare services. It is comprised of 182 hospitals and 2,300+ sites of care in 20 states and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. A.J. de Bartolomeo, Esq. TADLER LAW LLP 22 Bayview Avenue, Suite 200 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (212) 946-9300 E-mail: atadler@tadlerlaw.com ajd@tadlerlaw.com HORIZON BANCORP: Faces Key Securities Suit Over SEC Filing ---------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Bancorp, 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 April 20, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit entitled "Chad Key, et al. v. Horizon Bancorp, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-02961 was filed against the company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging, among other things, the company made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts which allegedly resulted in harm to a putative class of purchasers of its securities from March 9, 2022 and March 10, 2023. Horizon Bancorp, Inc. is a registered bank holding company incorporated in Indiana and headquartered in Michigan City, Indiana. Horizon provides a broad range of banking services in northern and central Indiana and southern and central Michigan through its bank subsidiary, Horizon Bank, and other affiliated entities and Horizon Risk Management, Inc. INCOMM FINANCIAL: Smith Sues Over Deceptive Gift Card Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INCOMM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., D/B/A INCOMM PAYMENTS AND PATHWARD, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-04687 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 12, 2023) arises from the Defendants' engagement in unfair, unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent practices by marketing Gift Cards with specific Face Value amounts in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. InComm sells prepaid debit cards, including general purpose, nonreloadable cards such as its "SecureSpend" (Non-Reloadable Cards) and general purpose, reloadable cards such as "Vanilla" Visa and Mastercard Prepaid Cards. InComm also sells store-branded cards such as "Target" gift cards (hereinafter Reloadable Cards, and collectively, Gift Cards). Non-Reloadable Cards have preloaded funds of a specified amount ("Face Value") from $10 to $500, available to be used by whomever purchased or received the Cards. According to the complaint, InComm has a history of denying consumers access to funds loaded onto their Gift Cards. People who receive these Cards from purchasers as gifts report that their Cards have no value or less than Face Value. The purchasers who use the Cards for their own purposes also report that their Cards have no value or less than the Face Value. The Face Value of Plaintiff's Cards was either partially or completely depleted, or never loaded onto the Cards, before Plaintiff tried to use the Cards. The Plaintiff purchased three Gift Cards, none of which function correctly, says the suit. InComm Financial Services, Inc. operates as a global payments technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. BOWER LAW GROUP, PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (213) 446-6652 E-mail: dbower@bowerlawgroup.com - and - Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. ADEMI LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com JASPER CTY, SC: McDowell Sues Over Withheld COVID-19 Premium Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Buford "Chad" McDowell and Rachel Riley, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Jasper County, Case No. 9:23-cv-04706-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 20, 2023) sues the Defendant for illegally withholding COVID-19 premium pay depriving class members of payment to which they are entitled. According to the complaint, despite the Plaintiffs and the Class meeting the federal requirements as set out in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, and the Department of Treasury's interim and final rules, the Defendant continues to withhold premium pay from the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class. The Defendant allegedly, in implementing 42 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., and its related regulations, made an arbitrary and capricious decision to only pay those eligible workers that performed essential work during the March 16, 2020, through June 11, 2021 time period who, in addition to meeting all the requirements set forth by statute and regulation, were also still employed by the Defendant at the times the premium payment was made, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to receive all compensation, specifically the premium pay from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds funds given to the Defendant for that express purpose, at the same rate as the Defendant has paid to other employees who performed the same work as the Plaintiffs and the Class. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class have been deprived of compensation to which they are entitled, including monetary damages in the amount of three times the unpaid wages as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, the suit alleges. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as representative of a proposed class defined as follows: All eligible employees employed by Jasper County who performed essential work between March 16, 2020, and June 11, 2021, that left employment with Jasper County prior to September 25, 2021, and did not receive premium pay for essential work performed during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Plaintiff Buford "Chad" McDowell was employed by the Defendant as a Canine Handler from prior to March 16, 2020, to March of 2021 when he resigned. Plaintiff Rachel Riley was employed by the Defendant as a Road Deputy and Canine Handler from prior to March 16, 2020, to March of 2021 when she resigned.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brady R. Thomas, Esq. Daniel S. Haltiwanger, Esq. Grace M. Babcock, Esq. RICHARDSON THOMAS, LLC 1513 Hampton Street, First Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 281-8150 E-mail: brady@richardsonthomas.com dan@richardsonthomas.com grace@richardsonthomas.com - and - Victoria Kepes, Esq. THE NOBLE LAW FIRM, PLLC 1156 Bowman Road, Suite 200 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (919) 251-6008 Facsimile: (919) 869-2079 E-mail: vkepes@thenoblelaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Noviskis Sues Over Decongestants' False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY NOVISKIS, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., and PROCTER & GAMBLE, Case No. 1:23-cv-13926 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought under Illinois's consumer protection laws by the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, who purchased the following over-the-counter ("OTC") decongestant products containing phenylephrine: Sudafed PE, and Vicks NyQuil. The products are manufactured, sold, and distributed by the Defendants and have been found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to lack efficacy. The Products' lack of efficacy was not disclosed to the Plaintiff prior to the Plaintiff's purchase of the Products and Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products had she known they did not work as advertised. The Plaintiff and the putative class suffered economic damages due to Defendants' misconduct and they seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of the products they purchased, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff relied on the Sudafed PE and Vicks NyQuil's "Maximum Strength" and "Max Strength" labels respectively in deciding to purchase what she believed to be an effective nasal decongestants. Had the Plaintiff known that phenylephrine, the only active oral nasal decongestant ingredient in Sudafed PE and Vicks NyQuil, is not the "Maximum Strength" or "Max Strength" nasal decongestant available on the market, she would not have purchased them. The Plaintiff purchased Sudafed PE, and Vicks NyQuil in Cook and DuPage Counties. During that time, based on the false and misleading claims by the Defendants, Plaintiff was unaware that Defendants' Products were not an effective remedy for congestion and/or cold symptoms. J&J is a corporation engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of various OTC pharmaceutical products, including Sudafed PE.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ken Moll, Esq. Valeria F Benitez, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N Stetson Ave, 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 E-mail: info@molllawgroup.com kmoll@molllawgroup.com KPMG LLP: Seeks Oct. 14 Deadline to Submit Class Cert Brief ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RITORTO et al v. KPMG, LLP et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-19330-MEF-MAH (D.N.J.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order setting a deadline of Oct. 13, 2023, for them to submit brief responding to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and addressing the Plaintiffs' Article III standing. KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing Audit, Tax and Advisory services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zvaf2L at no extra charge.[CC] LEMOS FAMILY: Faces Furman Class Suit Over Underpaid Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Lambert of Half Moon Bay Review reports that a former employee of Lemos Family Farm Inc. on the outskirts of Half Moon Bay has filed a lawsuit alleging the agritourism company failed to pay minimum wage along with a range of other labor code violations. The complaint was filed on Sept 12 in San Mateo County Superior Court and seeks class action status. It alleges the popular attraction failed to pay some employees in accordance with California law. It also alleges Lemos didn't provide breaks for meal periods, didn't pay proper overtime, didn't give employees proper pay statements and failed to pay employees earned wages upon termination. The suit alleges the misconduct began at least four years before the suit was filed. The named plaintiff is Louise Furman, whom the suit characterizes as a non-exempt, hourly employee at the "amusement park." It says Furman worked five or six days a week from approximately 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. selling entry tickets, managing the parking lot and performing other duties for the popular attraction on Highway 92 near the Ox Mountain Landfill. On its website, Lemos Farm is characterized as "a working farm and themed amusement park" with pony rides, bounce houses, goat yoga and more. The popular attraction is a landmark on the coast, well known for the statue of a horse that is painted in accordance with changing seasons. Representatives of the farm did not return emails seeking comment on the suit and they could not be reached on the phone in time for this report. The suit says Lemos managers indicated employees were agricultural workers and therefore exempt from some California labor regulations. "However . . . plaintiff and putative class members are not agricultural employees because they are employed by defendant to operate its amusement park," the suit states. Agricultural workers were not always entitled to overtime in California. Assembly Bill 1066 in 2016 created a timetable to bring such employees in line with workers in most other industries. By 2022, agricultural employers with more than 25 employees had to pay overtime for more than eight hours in a single day and more than 40 hours in a week. Currently, farming operations with fewer than 25 employees must pay overtime after nine hours in a single day or 50 hours in a workweek. The Industrial Welfare Commission's Work Order 14 describes who qualifies as an agricultural worker in the state of California. It makes no mention of the kind of work Furman describes in her complaint. The complaint estimates more than 100 people were underpaid for labor at the farm attraction over the four-year period indicated in the suit. The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages as well as attorneys' fees and fines it suggests are outlined in the state labor code. The first hint of the dispute appears to have come in a December 2022 letter to the state Labor Workforce Development Agency. It was not immediately clear whether the agency acted upon the allegations in the letter. The attorney for Furman did not return calls seeking further comment on the suit in time for this story. [GN] LIGHT & WONDER INC: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder, Inc. (L&W) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that a consolidated antitrust claim alleging that the defendants created an illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. On September 4, 2020, Alfred T. Giuliano, as liquidation trustee for RIH Acquisition NJ, LLC (d/b/a The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel) filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the Defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit, including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On October 29, 2020, the trial court consolidated the Giuliano matters and on October 30, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On November 9, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended consolidated complaint, and also filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano’s individual claims. On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration; stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitral process; and accordingly dismissed all pending motions without prejudice. On May 31, 2022, defendants filed a motion to lift the stay of the lawsuit for the limited purpose of amending the court's May 19, 2022 order to confirm that Giuliano must proceed to arbitration on an individual basis rather than a class-wide basis. On June 10, 2022, Giuliano filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the court therefore denied as moot defendants' motion to lift the stay in an order entered on March 28, 2023. Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and table game products and services to licensed gaming entities; providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and services. LIGHT & WONDER INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in Nevada --------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder, Inc. (L&W) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that is currently facing a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc. On September 3, 2020, the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma (d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises) filed On October 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to add Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the Umpqua Indian Development Corp., d/b/a Seven Feathers Casino as a plaintiff. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for card shufflers sold or leased to regulated casinos in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all regulated United States casinos directly leasing or purchasing card shufflers from the defendants on or after April 1, 2009. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On November 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims. On November 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a finding that defendants are collaterally estopped from re-litigating issues litigated in the 2018 litigation versus Shuffle Tech International Corp., Aces Up Gaming, and Poydras-Talrick Holdings. On August 27, 2021, the Nevada district court entered an order transferring the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' individual claims; stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitral process; and accordingly dismissed all pending motions without prejudice as moot. Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and table game products and services to licensed gaming entities; providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and services. LIVE NATION: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Heckman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 10, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled Skot Heckman, Luis Ponce, Jeanene Popp, and Jacob Roberts, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. On January 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs brought this class action against Defendants under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to recover the damages they suffered from paying supracompetitive fees on primary and secondary ticket purchases from Ticketmaster's online platforms. The Defendants have willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power for Ticketmaster in the relevant markets for primary ticketing services for major concert venues and, on information and belief, for secondary ticketing services for major concert venues, says the suit. On March 8, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that this case is virtually identical to another case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster which this Court had previously sent to arbitration. Before filing an opposition to Defendants' Motion, Plaintiffs sought discovery related to the validity, unconscionability, and severability of the dispute -- resolution provisions in the terms of use. On June 9, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request and allowed the parties to conduct limited discovery as to those issues. The parties completed such discovery on January 27, 2023. The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants' Motion on March 22, 2023, and Defendants filed a Reply on April 18, 2023. In advance of the May 1, 2023 hearing on the Motion, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling, which posed a number of questions for the parties to discuss at oral argument and reserved decision on the Motion pending additional argument. Following oral argument, the Court requested and the parties submitted supplemental briefing. The Court held a second hearing on Defendants' Motion on July 13, 2023. On August 10, 2023, Judge George H. Wu entered an Order denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The appellate case is captioned as Skot Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55770, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 12, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 19, 2023; -- Transcript shall be ordered by October 10, 2023; -- Transcript is due on November 7, 2023; -- Appellants Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster, LLC opening brief is due on December 18, 2023; -- Appellees Skot Heckman, Luis Ponce, Jeanene Popp and Jacob Roberts answering brief is due on January 17, 2024; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendants-Appellants LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., are represented by: Andrew Michael Gass, Esq. Sadik Harry Huseny, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 - and - Roman Martinez, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 11th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Plaintiffs-Appellees SKOT HECKMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Albert Young Pak, Esq. Warren David Postman, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN, LLC 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 918-1835 - and - William R. Sears, IV, Esq. Kevin Teruya, Esq. Adam Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (339) 223-0526 LOUISIANA: Class Cert. Ruling in Smith Suit Appealed ---------------------------------------------------- Defendants John Bel Edwards, Governor, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled ALEX A., by and through his guardian, MOLLY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; WILLIAM SOMMERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Office of Juvenile Justice, JAMES M. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Case No. 3:22-cv-00573-SDD-RLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge. This case was filed on August 19, 2022 following an announcement by Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards in the summer of 2022 that the Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ) had plans to temporary transfer a small number of youth in OJJ custody to the facility formerly used as "death row" on the grounds of the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. This decision was in response to "a small handful of youth" who "wreaked havoc, endangering themselves, other youth, OJJ staff, and members of the general public" by "ongoing and repeated acts of violent and disruptive behavior" and repeatedly escaping and attempting to escape OJJ secure care facilities all over the state. Plaintiff Alex A. moved for a temporary restraining order, which the Court denied, but the Court set the matter for a preliminary injunction hearing, which was held from September 6 through September 8, 2022. On October 19, 2022, OJJ moved the first eight youth to Bridge City Center for Youth at West Feliciana (BCCY-WF). On October 25, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding Brian B. and Charles C. as Named Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. Brian B. is now deceased; thus, Alex A. and Charles C. are the only "Named Plaintiffs" and proposed class representatives. Shortly after amending their Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and appointment of class counsel on October 31, 2022, which is opposed by Defendants. In July 2023, nearly a year after BCCY-WF has been operating as OJJ's Transitional Treatment Unit, Plaintiffs filed a second Motion for Preliminary Injunction, arguing that OJJ has failed to deliver on the promises made to the Court at the prior hearing to provide constitutionally adequate care and services as required by federal and state law. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim they are subjected to long periods of solitary confinement, referred to by OJJ as "cell restriction;" they are not receiving mental health, educational, rehabilitative, or recreational services; and their disabilities are not being accommodated. Spanning over three weeks in August 2023, the Court scheduled a 7-day evidentiary hearing on this motion. There is evidence before the Court suggesting that youth are being threatened with transfer to BCCY-WF in a punitive manner and that "cell restriction" is likewise being administered as punishment. On August 31, 2023, Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick signed an Order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The appellate case is captioned as Smith v. Edwards, Case No. 23-30634, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on September 13, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Appellants John Bel Edwards, Governor; in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana, et al., are represented by: Lemuel Eggleston Montgomery, III, Esq. BUTLER SNOW, L.L.P. P.O. Box 6010 Ridgeland, MS 39158 Telephone: (601) 985-4410 Plaintiffs-Appellees Molly Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, real party in interest Alex A., et al., are represented by: Russell D. Barksdale, Esq. BARKSDALE LAW, L.L.C. 2831 St. Claude Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 908-2415 - and - Ashley Dalton, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 322-8060 - and - Sara Helene Godchaux, Esq. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY 7214 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118-0000 Telephone: (504) 861-5600 - and - Tammie M. Gregg, Esq. ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (301) 752-9645 - and - Ronald S. Haley, Jr., Esq. HALEY & ASSOCIATES 8211 Goodwood Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Telephone: (225) 663-8869 - and - Meghan K. Matt, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 1340 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70112-0000 Telephone: (225) 413-0463 - and - Christopher James Murrell, Esq. MURRELL LAW FIRM 2831 St. Claude Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 717-1297 - and - David Bradley Shanies, Esq. 110 W. 40th Street New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 951-1710 - and - David J. Utter, Esq. CLAIBORNE FIRM 410 E. Bay Street Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 236-9559 - and - Lauren Winkler, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 M&T BANK: Fails to Provide Borrower's Information, Cappiello Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH CAPPIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. M&T BANK, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12124 (D. Mass., Sept. 18, 2023) alleges violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to provide borrowers with specific account information available to them in the regular course of business upon receiving a Qualified Written Request or a Request for Information from the borrower. M&T BANK CORPORATION is a bank holding company. The Company, through its banking subsidiaries, offer a variety of commercial banking, trust, and investment services to their customers. M&T Bank operates branch offices in New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola S. Yousif, Esq. Matthew McKenna, Esq. SHIELD LAW, LLC 157 Belmont St. Brockton, MA 02301 Telephone: 508-588-7300 Email:nick@shieldlaw.com matt@shieldlaw.com MATTERPORT INC: Arsenault Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND ARSENAULT & TIMOTHY BUSHIKA, together as Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MATTERPORT, INC. f/k/a GORES HOLDINGS VI, INC., a Delaware Corporation, RAYMOND J. PITTMAN, MICHAEL B. GUSTAFSON, PETER HÉBERT, JASON KRIKORIAN, and SUSAN REPO, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0930 (Del. Ch., Sept. 12, 2023) is a verified class action complaint against Matterport and members of the Company's board of directors for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Sections 102(b)(7) and 122(17), and Delaware common law and public policy. According to the complaint, the Company's charter, adopted and maintained by Defendants, has a provision in which the Company grants a blanket waiver of the corporate opportunity doctrine contrary to Delaware law. Under Delaware law, fiduciary duties may be modified or eliminated and corporations have the power to renounce in advance any interest of the corporation in an opportunity to participate in specified business opportunities. Such a waiver of corporate opportunities must be specific and a company's officers and directors may not be issued carte blanche to pursue opportunity belonging to the Company. Likewise, the duty of loyalty cannot be eliminated or limited. The Defendants' Waiver Provision allegedly violates both rules. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other stockholders of Matterport against Matterport and members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the provision violates Delaware law and public policy and is invalid. Plaintiffs Raymond Arsenault and Timothy Bushika, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, are and have been at all relevant times, owners of shares of Matterport's Class A common stock. Matterport, Inc., f/k/a Gores Holdings VI, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Sunnyvale, California. It is a spatial data and 3D capture technology company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Andrew A. Ralli, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 Facsimile: (302) 984-3939 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com aralli@coochtaylor.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (20) 3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com MATTERPORT INC: Faces Suit Over Corporate Opportunity Doctrine -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Leonard at bloomberglaw.com reports that investors sued Matterport Inc., challenging a clause in the 3D technology company's charter that allegedly gives insiders blanket permission to steer corporate opportunities to themselves. The lawsuit, filed, targets a provision that waives the duties of board members and executives under the so-called corporate opportunity doctrine, eliminating their obligation to give Matterport a first shot at any deals that come to their attention through their work with the company. The proposed class action is the second recent case in Delaware's Chancery Court taking aim at a similar charter provision, following a virtually identical complaint.[GN] MCCAIN FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carr Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JAYNE CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McCAIN FOODS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01235 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 19, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Carr was employed by the Defendant as a separator. MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC. produces food products. The Company produces french fries, potato, and other snack food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com MERCER COUNTY, PA: Parties Must Complete Class Discovery by Dec. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOYELLE CAMPBELL and CLAYTON BOYD, v. THE COUNTY OF MERCER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00099-CB-LPL (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan entered an order as follows: 1. The parties shall complete class Dec. 29, 2023 certification discovery by: 2. The motion and brief in support of Feb. 2, 2024 Class certification shall be Filed no later than 3. Responses shall be filed no March 1, 2024 Later than: 4. Replies shall be filed no March 15, 2024 later than: A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t86kNa at no extra charge.[CC] MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a WWW.CRUCIAL.COM, Case No. 23STCV17448 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07058-FMO-PVC. The Plaintiff has brought this action against Micron pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and for invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. Rebecca Harlow, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101-2668 Phone: +1 206 839 4300 Facsimile: +1 206 839 4301 Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com rharlow@orrick.com MITO ASIAN FUSION: Aguilar Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Aguilar, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MITO ASIAN FUSION, INC. d/b/a MITO ASIAN FUSION and YI CHEN, WEI CHEN, YONG CHEN, YILEI CAO, and CHANGXI ZOU individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-06931 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff weekly as she was a manual laborer in violation of New York Labor law frequency of wage payment provision and seek liquidated damages for this violation pursuant to NYLL. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide wage notices and wage statements in violation of NYLL. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants' unlawful actions, compensation for their failure to pay overtime wages and liquidated damages, compensation for their failure to pay at a proper frequency, compensatory damages, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a food runner and a busser. The Defendants own and/or operate at least five restaurants throughout New York City, Westchester County and Suffolk County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com MJR CUSTOM SHOP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MJR Custom Shop, LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MJR Custom Shop, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06872-ARR-PK (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MJR Custom Shop, LLC is a music shop located in New York City.[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 NEOCORTEXT INC: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Young Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- NeoCortext, Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated September 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled KYLAND YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEOCORTEXT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02496, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 18, 2023, the suit alleges that the Defendant violated the California Right of Publicity Statute, which prohibits and provides statutory damages for the knowing misappropriation of an individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in advertising or soliciting without the individual's prior consent. Plaintiff Young claims that Neocortext has been commercially exploiting his and thousands of other actors, musicians, athletes, celebrities, and other well-known individuals' names, voices, photographs, or likenesses to sell paid subscriptions to its smartphone application, Reface, without their permission. On May 31, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 425 and a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. On September 5, 2023, Judge Wesley L. Hsu entered an order denying NeoCortext's motion to dismiss and motion to strike. He states that NeoCortext does not provide support for its apparent assertion that "knowingly" means "with affirmative knowledge of" the presence of Young's image in the Reface application. Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to Young, the Court finds that Young has adequately pled that NeoCortext "knowingly" used his identity when it compiled his images with his name in the Reface application and made the images available for users to manipulate. The appellate case is captioned as Kyland Young v. NeoCortext, Inc., Case No. 23-55772, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 12, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant NeoCortext, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 19, 2023; -- Appellant NeoCortext, Inc. opening brief is due on November 14, 2023; -- Appellee Kyland Young answering brief is due on December 14, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendant-Appellant NEOCORTEXT, INC. is represented by: Kathryn Jean Fritz, Esq. Mary Mornay Griffin, Esq. Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq. Nicholas Antonio Santos, Esq. FENWICK & WEST, LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Plaintiff-Appellee KYLAND YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 - and - Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 N California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 - and - Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08336 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as a customer service representative. NEW YORK CITY comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com -and- Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: BCERS Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bucks County Employees Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, ALAN H. SHAW, JAMES A. SQUIRES, and MARK R. GEORGE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00982 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Sept. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-04175-SDG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is one of the nation's premier transportation companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614/488-0400 Fax: 614/488-0401 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631/367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 - and - Richard Gonnello, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832 New York, NY 10170 Phone: 212/432-5100 Email: rgonnello@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 250 Greenwich Street 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 937-7220 - and - R. Leland Evans, Esq. Scott Alan Fenton, Esq. DICKIE MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. - OH 10 West Broad Street, Suite 1950 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 258-6000 - and - Tamar Kaplan-Marans, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 230-8809 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PA: Gallagher Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northampton County Revenue Appeals Board, et al. The case is styled as John F. Gallagher, Melissa M. Gallagher, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northampton County Revenue Appeals Board, Northampton County Tax Claim Bureau, Bethlehem Township, Bethlehem Area School District, Stacy Gober, Stephen J. Barron, Jr., Andrew J. Freda, in their individual and official capacities, Portnoff Law Associates, LTD, Case No. 5:23-cv-03275-JMG (E.D. Pa., Aug. 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Northampton County -- https://www.northamptoncounty.org/FISAFF/ASSESSMNT/Pages/Appeal-Hearings.aspx -- is a county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. John F Gallagher, I, Esq. 4050 Freemansburg Ave Easton, PA 18045 Phone: (484) 903-3286 Email: johnfrankgallagher@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Gerard J. Geiger, Esq. NEWMAN WILLIAMS, P.C. 712 Monroe St., P.O. Box 511 Stroudsburg, PA 18360-0511 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com NYC MASSAGE: Fails to Pay Therapists' Minimum, OT Wages, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sayquan McKenzie, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. NYC Massage and Spa Inc., Alexander Smith, and Ella Smith, Case No. 1:23-cv-08310 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law as well as seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unlawfully deducted gratuities, liquidated and statutory damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff worked six days per week, from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. for a total period of 42 hours during each of the weeks. However, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff $75 per client, regardless of how many hours he worked per day. In addition, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating the Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from the Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' wages. Accordingly, the Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiff as a tipped worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties, says the suit. Plaintiff McKenzie was employed as a massage therapist from December 2021 to July 2023 at the Defendants' massage and spa treatment center located at 22 West 48th St., No. 704, New York. NYC is a massage and spa treatment center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com NYKO TECHNOLOGIES: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nyko Technologies, LLC. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Nyko Technologies, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08111 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nyko -- https://nyko.com/ -- specializes in interactive entertainment, computing, consumer electronics, portable audio, as well as online and wireless technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal OAK STREET HEALTH: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak Street Health MSO, LLC. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Oak Street Health MSO, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06967 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oak Street Health -- https://www.oakstreethealth.com/ -- currently operates more than 170 centers across 21 states and is the only primary care provider to carry the AARP name.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over IPO Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olaplex Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on November 17, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Lilien v. Olaplex Holdings, Inc. et al.," No. 2:22-cv-08395. A consolidated complaint was filed on April 28, 2023, which names as additional defendants the underwriters for the company's IPO and various stockholders that sold shares of common stock of the company in the IPO. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's common stock in or traceable to its IPO and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action seeks certification of the putative class, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief that the court determines is appropriate. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on July 19, 2023. Olaplex Holdings, Inc. operates indirectly through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Penelope and Olaplex, Inc., which conducts business under the name "Olaplex." Olaplex develops, manufactures and distributes a line of hair care products developed to address three key uses: treatment, maintenance and protection. OPENAI INC: Authors Guild Sues Over Harmful Copyright Infringements ------------------------------------------------------------------- Authors Guild, 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, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OPENAI INC., OPENAI LP, OPENAI LLC, OPENAI GP LLC, OPENAI OPCO LLC, OPENAI GLOBAL LLC, OAI CORPORATION LLC, OPENAI HOLDINGS LLC, OPENAI STARTUP FUND I LP, OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I LLC, and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023), is brought under the Copyright Act seeking redress for Defendants' flagrant and harmful infringements of Plaintiffs' registered copyrights in written works of fiction. Defendants copied Plaintiffs' works wholesale, without permission or consideration. The Defendants then fed Plaintiffs' copyrighted works into their "large language models" or "LLMs," algorithms designed to output human-seeming text responses to users' prompts and queries. These algorithms are at the heart of Defendants' massive commercial enterprise. And at the heart of these algorithms is systematic theft on a mass scale. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of professional fiction writers whose works spring from their own minds and their creative literary expression. These authors' livelihoods derive from the works they create. But Defendants' LLMs endanger fiction writers' ability to make a living, in that the LLMs allow anyone to generate--automatically and freely (or very cheaply)--texts that they would otherwise pay writers to create. Moreover, Defendants' LLMs can spit out derivative works: material that is based on, mimics, summarizes, or paraphrases Plaintiffs' works, and harms the market for them. Unfairly, and perversely, without Plaintiffs' copyrighted works on which to "train" their LLMs, Defendants would have no commercial product with which to damage--if not usurp--the market for these professional authors' works. Defendants' willful copying thus makes Plaintiffs' works into engines of their own destruction. The Defendants could have "trained" their LLMs on works in the public domain. They could have paid a reasonable licensing fee to use copyrighted works. What Defendants could not do was evade the Copyright Act altogether to power their lucrative commercial endeavor, taking whatever datasets of relatively recent books they could get their hands on without authorization. There is nothing fair about this. Defendants' unauthorized use of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works thus presents a straightforward infringement case applying well-established law to well recognized copyright harms. The Plaintiffs thus seek damages for the lost opportunity to license their works, and for the market usurpation Defendants have enabled by making Plaintiffs unwilling accomplices in their own replacement; and a permanent injunction to prevent these harms from recurring, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are authors of a broad array of works of fiction. OpenAI Inc. was founded as a nonprofit research entity in 2015.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Geman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Phone: 212.355.9500 Email: rgeman@lchb.com - and - Scott J. Sholder, Esq. CeCe M. Cole, Esq. COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAMS & SHEPPARD LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 38th Floor New York, New York 10010 Phone: 212.974.7474 Email: ssholder@cdas.com ccole@cdas.com - and - Reilly T. Stoler, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415.956.1000 Email: rstoler@lchb.com ibensberg@lchb.com PACIFIC CHOICE: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Choice Brands LLC, et al. The case is styled as Charles Hill, and others similarly situated v. Pacific Choice Brands LLC, Case No. CVRI2304807 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty., Sept. 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Other Employment)." Pacific Choice Brands, Inc. -- https://www.pacificchoice.com/ -- is a food production company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com PACIFIC GAS: Ogans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The case is styled as Dorian Ogans, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Case No. 23CV008944 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 20, 2023). Pacific Gas and Electric Company -- https://www.pge.com/ -- is one of the largest combination natural gas and electric utilities in the United States.[BN] PASTA LA VISTA: Avilez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Avilez, Buddy David, Jackson Ochoa, Stephanie Snyder, and Romina Morales Inostroza, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated class members, Plaintiffs v. Pasta La Vista, Inc., d/b/a Pazza Notte and Tove Nord, Defendants, Case No. 526435/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Kings Cty., Sept. 12, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; misappropriation of gratuities; failure to keep track of time and separate out time spent doing closing side work and non-service work; illegal tip sharing arrangement; failure to pay spread of hours; failure to provide accurate wage information on the wage notices; failure to furnish wage statement; and failure to provide tip out sheet. The Plaintiffs are formerly employed by the Defendants as servers at their Pazza Notte restaurant. Pasta La Vista, Inc. is a domestic corporation which owns and operates a restaurant called Pazza Notte based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN 260 Madison Ave., 15th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-8999 Facsimile: (646) 693-2289 PENGUIN WELLNESS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penguin Wellness LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penguin Wellness LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08291 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Penguin CBD -- https://penguincbd.com/ -- is the #1-rated premium CBD oil brand.[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 PETICULAR LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peticular LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peticular LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08289 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Peticular LLC -- https://www.peticular.com.au/ -- have been selling particularly high quality cat and dog products for the furry family.[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 PHILADELPHIA, PA: Violates First Amendment Rights, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Tesfaye Negussie at abcnews.go.com reports that three Philadelphia school teachers filed a proposed class action lawsuit on August 18 against the School District of Philadelphia, accusing the district of violating their First Amendment rights after they protested against asbestos in the school. Ethan Tannen and Carolyn Gray, who are current teachers at Julia R. Masterman Laboratory and Demonstration School along with Karen Celli, who retired in June 2023, claim in a lawsuit obtained by ABC News that the school docked their pay for unauthorized absences after they assembled their workstations on the outdoor patio of the school amid concerns over asbestos in the facilities. The complaint alleges that the district failed to provide complete information to teachers and parents about asbestos remediation efforts and potential dangers of asbestos at the school. The school district marked the teachers as absent and docked their pay for Aug. 26 and 27, according to the complaint. "Those teachers were not 'absent'. The district knew that and knew they were working," Mary Catherine Roper, an attorney who represents all three teachers, said to ABC News in a statement on Sept. 13. "The district wanted to stop the protest, so they threatened the teachers and then punished them. That violates the First Amendment." The School District of Philadelphia told ABC News in a statement that they could not comment on pending litigation. They also would not elaborate on whether asbestos exists at the Masterman school. The latest AHERA (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act) report published for the Masterman school building, which is from the 2018-2019 school year, identified over 100 "confirmed" or "assumed" sources of asbestos in the building, according to the lawsuit. "Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that has historically been used for many industrial and construction purposes," said Dr. Stephanie Widmer, an ABC News contributor and medical toxicologist, who was not involved in this case. "The material itself is very fire resistant and is a great thermal insulator, many houses built before 1980 contained asbestos. Since the discovery of negative health effects, 66 countries and territories have banned asbestos." Though asbestos' use is now limited in the United States, it is not completely banned, Widmer said. "Well established health risks of asbestos exposure include 'asbestosis', which is scarring of the lungs that results from inhaling asbestos fibers, and an aggressive form of lung cancer, Mesothelioma," Widmer said. "Asbestos is a known carcinogen." According to Widmer, it is important to note that negative health effects from asbestos exposure don't mount right away. It can take many years to develop illness. The issue of asbestos in schools is one that the School District of Philadelphia has dealt with over the years. Two schools had to close last April due to concerns of the presence of the potentially hazardous mineral fiber. Amid school closures, School District of Philadelphia superintendent Tony Watlington told ABC News in April that it would cost almost $5 billion to "fully repair and bring our buildings up to code." "With decades of underfunding, the district has had to balance insufficient resources to work on our facilities and the need to deliver pressing educational services," Watlington added. To curb the effects of asbestos in schools, Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act in 1986, ordering districts "to inspect their school buildings for asbestos-containing building material, prepare asbestos management plans and perform asbestos response actions to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards," according to the Brookings Institute, a non-profit public policy organization in Washington D.C. Research has shown that lower-income and minority communities are disproportionally impacted by asbestos exposure, similar to other environmental pollutants compared to their wealthier, white counterparts because these groups are more likely to live in places or work in jobs that have environmental and occupational exposure. "The class members suffered damage as a result of the district's retaliatory actions in the form of a loss of First Amendment freedoms, lost wages and other employment benefits, and damage to their professional reputations from the discipline recorded in their employment records," according to the teachers' complaint. According to the lawsuit, up to 50 teachers were improperly disciplined. The three educators are seeking an award of financial damages from lost wages, plus interest and an expungement of their employment records from the school district's disciplinary actions. [GN] PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Faces Bar-Asher Securities Suit in E.D. N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Playtika Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that the company, its directors and certain of its officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 23, 2021 captioned "Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. et al." The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's securities between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021, and alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period. On March 10, 2022, the court appointed LBMotion Ltd. as lead plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2022. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The amended complaint also added the companies that served as underwriters for the company's IPO as defendants in the lawsuit. On September 15, 2022, in accordance with local rules of the court, the company and other defendants in the case filed a letter notifying the Court of defendants’ service upon plaintiffs of, among other things, a notice of motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On November 30, 2022, the company filed with the court a motion to dismiss. Playtika Holding Corp. and its subsidiaries, is a developer of mobile games. PONCA ORGANIC: Davis Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ponca Organic LLC. The case is styled as Lauren Davis, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ponca Organic LLC doing business as: Stillwater Dispensary, Case No. 5:23-cv-00829-JD (W.D. Okla., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ponca Organic LLC doing business as Stillwater Dispensary -- https://www.stillwater-dispensary.com/ -- is a Dispensary in Stillwater, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com POST UNIVERSITY: Douglas Files Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Post University, Inc. The case is styled as Allison Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Post University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04234-LMM (N.D. Ga., Sept. 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Post University -- https://post.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university in Waterbury, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com PRGX GLOBAL: Ebert Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jeffrey Ebert, on behalf of himself and on behalf of his minor children M.E., E.E., and S.E., Jennifer Ebert, on behalf of herself, and collectively on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRGX Global, Inc., Case No. 23104531 was removed from the Superior Court of Cobb County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Sept. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-04233-TWT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. PRGX Global, Inc. -- https://www.prgx.com/ -- is a global leader in Recovery Audit and Spend Analytics services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Phone: (404) 205-8400 Email: jim@ewlawllc.com - and - 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 The Defendant is represented by: Alexander N. Sedki, Esq. ADAMS AND REESE, LLP 3424 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1600 Monarch Tower Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (470) 427-3702 Email: alec.sedki@arlaw.com - and - Amanda Nicole Harvey, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 1452 Hughes Road, Suite 200 Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (267) 930-1697 Email: aharvey@mullen.law PRIME HYDRATION: T.K. Suit Hits Beverages' False Ads and Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- T.K., individually and in her capacity as parent and legal guardian of JOHN DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME HYDRATION LLC, CONGO BRANDS LLC, LOGAN PAUL and OLAJIDE OLAYINKA WILLIAMS OLATUNJI, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-476-GNS (W.D. Ken., Sept. 12, 2023) seeks to recover damages, restitution, and injunctive relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and a Nationwide Class and, as necessary, a California Consumer Subclass, of consumers who purchased Defendants' PRIME Energy beverages which were falsely labeled and advertised. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, distribute, and sell various flavors of the products, each of which contain 200 milligrams of caffeine. High levels of caffeine are known to lead to adverse health effects such as rapid heart rate, heart palpitations, high blood pressure, and potential disruption of sleep patterns. The Defendants' marketing and packaging caters to youth with its bright colors and hyped range of flavors, all released by Internet celebrities. Through its youth-oriented advertising, PRIME created a wide market for young energy drink consumers -- consumers who PRIME purports should not be consuming PRIME Energy. The Defendants' uniform marketing is intentionally designed to drive sales and increase profits, including by targeting the positive health-conscious benefits of PRIME Energy it offers to consumers and the young, unsuspecting consumers really believe that the product is, in fact, a healthy hydration drink. However, despite Defendants' consistent and pervasive marketing representations, the inordinately high caffeine content raises "a serious health concern for the kids it so feverishly targets," says the suit. Plaintiff T.K. brings this action individually and in her capacity as parent and legal guardian of John Doe, a 10-year-old minor child who consumed PRIME Energy on multiple occasions. Prime Hydration LLC is a food and beverage services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Chris Sanders, Esq. BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER 1041 Goss Avenue Louisville, KY 40217 Telephone: (502) 587-2002 E-mail: csanders@bccnlaw.com - and - Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq. STERLINGTON PLLC One World Trade Center 85th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 433-2993 E-mail: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. STERLINGTON PLLC One World Trade Center 85th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 433-2993 E-mail: Edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road Suite 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Facsimile: (404) 205-8395 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Coppock Sues Over False and Misleading Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kaycie Coppock, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. PROCTER & GAMBLE; TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-05353-EEF-KWR (E.D. La., Sept. 18, 2023), is brought under Louisiana's consumer protection laws by Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, who purchased the following over-the-counter ("OTC") decongestant products containing phenylephrine: Vicks Nyquil Severe Cold and Flu, Vicks NyQuil Sinex, and Target Sinus PE (collectively the "Products"). These Products are manufactured, sold and distributed by Defendants and have been found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to lack efficacy. The Products' lack of efficacy was not disclosed to Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff's purchase of the Products and Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products had he known they did not work as advertised. Plaintiff and the putative class suffered economic damages due to Defendants' misconduct and they seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of the Products they purchased. The Defendants Procter & Gamble and Target marketed and sold the Products to consumers in Louisiana and across the United States as an effective nasal decongestant. According to Defendants, phenylephrine works by constricting blood vessels in the nasal passages, which reduces swelling and congestion. In 2007, the FDA concluded that orally administered PE was Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective (GRASE). The FDA's GRASE determination allowed Defendants to market the Products as an OTC or "over-the-counter" medication. This was an important designation to Defendants as it allowed them to market the Products to consumers without requiring a doctor's prescription, making it more accessible for self-treatment, and allowing Defendants to make billions of dollars in OTC sales. However, on September 11th and 12th, 2023, the FDA issued a new report detailing its updated review of the efficacy of phenylephrine, based on the studies it initially reviewed in 2007 and additional studies obtained since its initial review. In light of the methodological and design flaws it found, the FDA now believes that "the original studies evaluated for efficacy" are "unacceptable as continued support for the efficacy of monographed doses or oral PE." Exhibit A. Since 2007, several additional large clinical trials have been conducted regarding the efficacy of phenylephrine. Those studies provide evidence of the absence of a decongestant effect from the OTC approved doses of 10 mg. Thus, the results of several studies reported after the initial efficacy determination of the Products in 2007 clearly demonstrate that PE is no more effective than placebo in decreasing nasal congestion and, thus, lacks efficacy. On September 12, 2023, an FDA panel unanimously declared that phenylephrine, the active ingredient in the Products, is an ineffective decongestant. In 2018, however, the FDA issued new guidance for industry as it related to the use of nasal congestion symptom scores to evaluate congestion meaning that NAR was no longer used as a primary endpoint to evaluate congestion in studies. Based on the FDA's new 2018 guidance, Defendants knew or should have known that their marketing claims regarding the Products' efficacy were false and misleading. This is because the primary endpoint for evaluating the efficacy of the Products had changed since the FDA's 2007 NDAC meeting, meaning that the previous data under which the Products were approved as GRASE no longer supported efficacy. There have been no published studies since the FDA's revised 2008 guidance for industry was released that demonstrate the effectiveness of oral phenylephrine as a decongestant. Accordingly, Defendants knew or should have known by at least 2018 that their marketing claims regarding the Products' efficacy were false and misleading. The Plaintiff and the class members purchased the Products in reliance on Defendants' false and deceptive marketing claims. As a result of Defendants' false and deceptive marketing, Plaintiff and the class members suffered economic damages, including the cost of purchasing the Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased NyQuil Severe Cold and Flu, NyQuil Sinex, and Target Sinus PE in St. Tammany Parrish. Procter & Gamble, is a corporation engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of various OTC pharmaceutical products, including Vicks NyQuil.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Hoekstra, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: 850-202-1010 Facsimile: 850-916-7449 Email: jhoekstra@awkolaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Misled Consumers on Decongestants, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that Procter & Gamble (PG.N), Walgreens (WBA.O) and Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ.N) former consumer business are among several companies accused in lawsuits of deceiving consumers about cold medicines containing an ingredient that a unanimous U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel declared ineffective. Proposed class actions were filed after the panel reviewed several studies and concluded that the ingredient phenylephrine marketed as a decongestant was essentially no better than a placebo. According to an agency presentation, about 242 million products with phenylephrine were sold in the United States last year, generating $1.76 billion of sales and accounting for about four-fifths of the market for oral decongestants. The first lawsuit appeared to have been filed in Pensacola, Florida, federal court. It said Johnson & Johnson Consumer and Procter & Gamble should have known by 2018 that their marketing claims about products with phenylephrine were "false and deceptive." That year was when new FDA guidance for evaluating symptoms related to nasal congestion demonstrated that earlier data about phenylephrine's effectiveness could no longer be relied upon, the complaint said. The plaintiff Steve Audelo, a Florida resident, said he bought Johnson & Johnson's Sudafed PE and Benadryl Allergy Plus, and Procter & Gamble's Vicks NyQuil, based on the companies' claims that the products worked. Similar lawsuits were filed against GSK (GSK.L), which makes TheraFlu; Reckitt Benckiser (RKT.L), which makes Mucinex Sinus Max, and Walgreens, which produces generic decongestants. Johnson & Johnson's consumer business is now known as Kenvue (KVUE.N) after a May 3 initial public offering. It also makes Tylenol Cold & Flu, whose ingredients include phenylephrine. Kenvue is also a defendant in one of the lawsuits. In a statement Johnson & Johnson said: "Johnson & Johnson is not named in the lawsuits, which makes sense because it did not manufacture or sell decongestant cold medicines and, following our separation, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc is not a part of Johnson & Johnson." Kenvue declined to comment. Other defendants declined to comment or did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The FDA generally follows but does not always adopt its advisory panels' recommendations. The agency said it would seek public comment on whether products with phenylephrine should be pulled from store shelves. The Florida case is Audelo v Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, No. 23-24250. Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Aurora Ellis and Chizu Nomiyama [GN] QTC COMMERCIAL: Bravener Sues Over Failure to Protect PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Trevis Bravener, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. QTC Commercial Services, LLC, d/b/a IMX Medical Management Services, Case No. 2:23-cv-03598 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 15, 2023), is brought seeking to redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of 7,594 individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of IMX's network in violation of its legal obligations. Between June 2022 and October 2022, an unknown actor gained access to IMX's inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class Members have had their personal identifiable information ("PII")1 and protected health information ("PHI") exposed (the "Data Breach"). In carrying out its business, IMX obtains, collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and the Class. As such, Defendant assumed the legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Data Breach was discovered in September 1, 2022, when Defendant discovered initial indicators of a security incident involving malware on laptop. IMX investigated the attack and found additional malware throughout its network. The investigation confirmed that certain IMX systems containing confidential and personal information had been accessed without authorization from June 2022 to October 2022. According to IMX, the PII and PHI exposed in the Breach included Social Security numbers and Medical Information ("Personal Information"). Around July 2023, IMX began notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Montgomery, Texas. The Defendant provides medical evaluation and review services to insurance carriers, third-party administrators, employers, law firms, and other businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: rkassan@milberg.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Boonparn Sues Over Deceptive Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Archanatep Boonparn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06936 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 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") and to redress the unlawful and deceptive practices employed by Defendants in connection with their labeling, marketing, and sale of PE Drugs. Such products for Reckitt include but are not limited to: Mucinex Nightshift, Mucinex Fast-Max Severe Congestion & Cough, and Mucinex Fast-Max Cold & Flu. All of Defendants' PE- containing products are referred to as "PE Drugs" herein. 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. each Defendant represented and warranted to consumers that its PE Drugs were effective for treating the indications identified and were properly branded. Specifically, each Defendant represented and warranted that its PE Drugs were merchantable and fit for their ordinary uses (e.g., effectively treating nasal congestion). However, 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), says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased at least one of Defendant's 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: Peter Samberg, Esq. PETER SAMBERG ATTORNEY AT LAW 100 Ardsley Ave. West P.O. Box 73 Ardsley on Hudson, NY 10503 Phone: (914) 391-1213 Email: psamberg@gmail.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN ROBERT PRESCOTT, DONOVAN MARSHALL, MARIA CHRISTINE ANELLO, DARLENE KITTREDGE, TREAHANNA CLEMMONS, and SUSAN ELIZABETH GRACIALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-02101-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an revised order granting the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (a) California Class: "All residents of California who purchased Woolite laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases "Color Renew" and/or "revives colors" from February 1, 2017 to May 1, 2023. (b) New York Class: "All residents of New York who purchased Woolite laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases "Color Renew" and/or "revives colors" from February 22, 2018 to May 1, 2023. (c) Massachusetts Class: "All residents of Massachusetts who purchased Woolite laundry detergent with a label bearing the phrases "Color Renew" and/or "revives colors" from February 22, 2017 to May 1, 2023." Reckitt is a consumer goods company makes health, hygiene and home products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rvCXnx at no extra charge.[CC] RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Scoffier Over Alleged Ineffective PE Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SCOFFIER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-20529-EP-JRA (D.N.J., Sept. 20, 2023) arises from the putative class members' purchase of ineffective and worthless over-the-counter oral or liquid drugs that were designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or ultimately sold by the Defendants that contained phenylephrine (PE). The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants represented that their PE Drugs were properly branded and effective for treating nasal congestion. However, these represents were false and deceptive, as the Defendants' PE Drugs were not effective for treating all the indications identified and/or were misbranded. 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." Accordingly, 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. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover for the economic and related equitable or injunctive relief for themself and all other persons similarly situated who purchased the Defendants' PE Drugs to redress the unlawful and deceptive practices employed by the Defendants in connection with their labeling, marketing, and sale of PE Drugs. Each putative class member paid for the Defendants' PE Drugs, but those products were not effective for treating the indications identified and/or were misbranded, and they were not fit for ordinary purpose and were not merchantable. As a result of each Defendant's misconduct, each putative class member was damaged. Each Defendant's conduct constitutes breach of express and implied warranties and breach of warranty under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, fraud (affirmative and omission), negligent misrepresentation or omission, negligence and negligence per se, breach of consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment, says the suit. The products for Reckitt include Mucinex Nightshift, Mucinex Fast-Max Severe Congestion & Cough, Mucinex Fast-Max Cold, Flu & Sore Throat, and Mucinex Fast-Max Cold & Flu. The Plaintiff purchased Mucinex Fast-Max Cold, Flu & Sore Throat. Reckitt manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 67 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 Telephone: (267) 435-1300 E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE: Facebook-Pixel Suit Bounced to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that a proposed class action alleging Reproductive Medicine Associates of Philadelphia PC shared patients' health information with Facebook, Google, and other third parties will return to state court, a federal court ruled. Removal of the lawsuit to federal court was improper because none of the plaintiffs' claims arose under federal law, Judge Timothy J. Savage of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said. Jane Doe alleged that RMA installed the Facebook pixel, the Google tag manager, and other tracking technologies on its patient portal, allowing third parties to collect information about users' medical conditions.[GN] RICOLA USA: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Menthol Lozenges ------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges Ricola Nasal Care Max Strength menthol lozenges are mislabeled given that menthol offers no decongestant benefits. The 21-page suit contends that although consumers who view the product's front label will expect the lozenges to be able to reduce symptoms of congestion and stuffiness, the product's packaging is misleading "for several reasons." For one, the case says, in the "Uses" section on the back label, defendant Ricola USA concedes that the lozenges are able to only temporarily relieve "minor mouth and throat irritation" and not nasal symptoms. Second, the lawsuit shares, menthol provides no relief for nasal symptoms, "which is why the FDA did not authorize [Ricola] to make these types of claims." "Studies have consistently demonstrated that though menthol stimulates cold receptors in nasal mucosa to create an increased sensation of airflow, it is incapable of any nasal decongestant action," the complaint specifies. "No evidence was found in support of any nasal decongestant action for menthol." Third, the lawsuit says that the Ricola drops at issue do not contain any nasal decongestant active ingredients, whether oral or topical. As such, labeling the lozenges as providing "Nasal Care" is false and misleading and renders the Ricola product misbranded, the complaint alleges. From there, the case argues that describing the menthol Ricola lozenges as "max strength" and "extra strength menthol" is similarly misleading, namely because the product contains less menthol than the maximum 20 mg limit allowed by the FDA. Per the suit, each lozenge contains just 15.3 mg of menthol. Overall, there are no "credible or accepted controlled scientific studies or reports" that indicate 15.3 mg of menthol provides a greater therapeutic benefit than a lozenge containing even 10 mg of menthol, the complaint contests. The filing says that there exists no justification for Ricola USA to claim that, from a therapeutic perspective, the 15.3 mg of menthol in the lozenges amounts to the product's potency being superior to a lozenge containing less than that, namely due to how the FDA has evaluated the dosages of menthol lozenges. "When the FDA evaluated the dosages for menthol lozenges, it only relied on studies of 9 mg menthol lozenges, not 20 mg, the maximum amount allowed," the suit states. "However, because the amount of menthol that would be fatal was significantly higher at 2 g, it allowed a maximum concentration of 20 mg, but not based on a showing this concentration was more effective or potent." The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in Florida who bought Ricola "Nasal Care" menthol lozenges in the state during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] ROBERTSON'S TRANSPORT: Richardson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robertson's Transport, LTD, et al. The case is styled as Tremayne Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robertson's Transport, LTD, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2322799 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Sept. 15, 2023). The case type is stated as "Complex Civil Unlimited." Robertsons Transport is the largest provider of home to school transport in Gloucestershire for over 25 years.[BN] ROCKY TOP: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum & OT Wages, Manis Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDI MANIS, individually, and on behalf of herself others similarly situated v. ROCKY TOP SHINE, LLC, d/b/a THREE JIMMY'S A GOOD TIME EATERY, LLC, and James Woods, Sr., Individually, and James Woods, Jr., Individually, Case No. 3:23-cv-00342 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 20, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former tipped employees (servers and bartenders), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs were paid a "tip credit" rate (a rate less than minimum wage) of pay against the required FLSA minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs typically worked over 40 hours per week. However, they were only paid straight time for each hour worked regardless of how many hours were worked. In other words, they were not paid at a rate equal to at least one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in any given workweek, the suit claims. Accordingly, the Defendants have had a common plan, policy and practice of pooling earned tips of the Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs with the Defendants thereby constituting an unlawful tip theft plan. As a result, the Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs are entitled to at least the applicable FLSA minimum wage rates of pay for all such unpaid wage claims, including at least the applicable minimum wage rate of pay, without applying any tip credit, for all hours worked on shifts during which unlawful tip theft, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following potential plaintiffs: "All current and former hourly-paid tipped employees who have been employed by and worked at any restaurant or bar franchised, owned, managed and/or operated by Rocky Top Shine, LLC, James Woods, Sr. and/or James Woods, Jr. in the United States at any time during the applicable statutory limitations' period covered by this Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA violations and, three years for willful FLSA violations) up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, and who is the Named Plaintiff or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA ("potential plaintiffs"). Plaintiff Brandi Manis has been employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid tipped employee at Defendants' Three Jimmys Good Time Eatery in Gatlinburg, Tennesse. Rocky Top is a restaurant and bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com SHOP MOLLY GREEN: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shop Molly Green, LLC. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Shop Molly Green, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08256 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Molly Green -- https://www.shopmollygreen.com/ -- is a family-owned and run fashion brand with a focus on chic, fun, comfortable, playful apparel and accessories.[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 SKIPLAGGED INC: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized Airline Tickets Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that American Airlines filed a lawsuit against online travel agency Skiplagged last month over claims it sold American tickets without being an authorized agent for the airline. Skiplagged is accused of deceiving consumers and charging them more for American tickets than if they had simply booked directly with the airline or one of its authorized agents. "Skiplagged is not, and never has been, an authorized agent of American," the lawsuit states. "It is a middle-man improperly inserting itself between American and flight consumers." American filed a similar complaint against Kiwi in July over claims the fare aggregator and ticket booker sold American tickets without being an authorized retailer of the airline. The airline argues Kiwi continued to sell tickets for American flights after American terminated an agreement between the two companies in 2020 due to Kiwi allegedly violating its terms. "Kiwi repeatedly violated the agreed terms of its agency agreement through similar abusive ticketing practices, and American terminated Kiwi's authority to issue tickets on American's behalf," the Kiwi lawsuit states. The agreement between Kiwi and American was in effect from between 2018 and 2020, according to the complaint. [GN] SLT LENDING SPV: Keifer Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned David Keifer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SLT LENDING SPV, INC. d/b/a SUR LA TABLE, Case No. C23-01432 was removed from the Contra Costa County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04790-AGT. In support of its Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court, Defendant SLT LENDING SPV, INC. D/B/A SUR LA TABLE ("Defendant") respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of the following public records: The pleadings and notice filed and served in David Keifer v. SLT Lending SPV, Inc. d/b/a Sur La Table, Case No. C23-01432 (the "State Court Action").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Victoria L. Weatherford, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.659.2634 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 Email: vweatherford@bakerlaw.com SLUSS + PADGETT: Walton Files Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sluss + Padgett, LLC. The case is styled as Melvina Walton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sluss + Padgett, LLC doing business as: Bardi Heating and Air Conditioning, Case No. 1:23-cv-04232-VMC (N.D. Ga., Sept. 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Sluss + Padgett -- https://www.slusspadgett.com/ -- offers comprehensive commercial, mechanical and plumbing services across market sectors in Atlanta.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com SOFI TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Juarez Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------- SoFi Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that in April 2022, the parties in case captioned "Juarez et al v. SoFi Lending Corp." executed a settlement agreement, which was approved by the court in July 2023. SoFi Lending Corp. and SoFi are defendants in a putative class action, captioned as "Juarez v. Social Finance, Inc. et al.," Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-03386-HSG, filed against them in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2020. Plaintiffs, who are conditional permanent residents or Deferred Access for Childhood Arrival holders, allege that the SoFi engaged in unlawful lending discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and California Civil Code, § 51, et seq., through policies and practices by making such categories of applicants ineligible for loans or eligible only with a co-signer who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. Plaintiffs further allege that the SoFi Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by accessing the credit reports of non-United States citizen loan applicants who hold green cards with a validity period of less than two years without a permissible purpose. SoFi is a financial services platform providing student loan refinancing options conducting its business through three reportable segments: Lending, Technology Platform and Financial Services. SOUTH STATE TRAILER: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against South State Trailer Supply Co., Inc. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. South State Trailer Supply Co., Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08259 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. South State Trailer Supply Co., Inc. operates as a retail store. The Company provides retail sale of new and used motor homes, recreational trailers, air conditioners, awnings, brakes and suspensions, doors, windows, trims, tires, and truck accessories.[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 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HEALTHCARE: Violates Genetic Privacy Law ---------------------------------------------------------- David Beasley at cookcountyrecord.com reports that in a new class action lawsuit, Southern Illinois Healthcare Foundation has been accused of violating an Illinois genetic information privacy law by requiring workers to supply their family health care history when applying for jobs. SIHF employs more than 1,000 people in Illinois, and operates more than 24 health care facilities in the state, according to the lawsuit. It is headquartered in downstate Sauget. According to the complaint, one of the named plaintiffs, Bridget Patrick, applied for the job of Healthy Start Program Manager with SIHF last September. "During the application and hiring process, Defendant directly or indirectly solicited, requested, or required Ms. Patrick to disclose her genetic information as a condition of employment," the lawsuit alleges. During a physical, Patrick was asked to fill out a questionnaire, according to the suit. "The questionnaire asked Ms. Patrick to disclose whether various diseases or disorders had manifested in her family members, including cardiac health, cancer, and diabetes, among other ailments," the lawsuit says. Patrick was also asked about her family medical history, the suit said. The complaint alleges these questions violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA). The GIPA law, passed by the state legislature in 1998 purportedly "provides strong legal protections to ensure that Illinois residents can take advantage of the knowledge that can be gained from obtaining personal genetic information, without fear that this same information could be used by employers to discriminate against them," the lawsuit says. SIHF allegedly "chose to repeatedly disregard Illinois' genetic privacy laws by asking its employees to provide genetic information in the form of family medical history to assist the company in making employment decisions," the suit says. The lawsuit seeks to expand the action to include everyone who worked for or applied for a job with SIHF in the past five years. They are seeking damages worth $15,000 for each wilful violation and $2,500 for each negligent violation, plus attorney fees and court costs. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Edward A. Wallace, Mark R. Miller and Molly C. Wells, of Wallace Miller, of Chicago.[GN] SOUTHERN REEL: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Reel, LLC. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Southern Reel, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08329 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Southern Reel, LLC -- https://www.southernreeloutfitters.com/ -- offer top brand fishing tackle, rods and reels such as 6th Sense, Booyah, Heddon, Kalin's, Big Bite Bait, Lucky Craft, Rapala, Rat-L-Trap, Rebel, Storm, and more.[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 SPIRIT AIRLINES: Elgamal Files Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spirit Airlines, Inc. The case is styled as Mostafa Elgamal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-61806-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Other Contract. Spirit Airlines -- https://www.spirit.com/ -- is the leading Ultra Low Cost Carrier in the United States, the Caribbean and Latin America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Frederick Aylstock, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLLC 803 N Palafox Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Phone: (850) 916-7450 Fax: 916-7449 Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com SPIRIT MANUFACTURING: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spirit Manufacturing, Inc. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Spirit Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08314-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Spirit Manufacturing, Inc., doing business as Spirit Fitness -- https://www.spiritfitness.com/ -- designs and develops fitness equipment.[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 STORZ & BICKEL AMERICA: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Storz & Bickel America, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Storz & Bickel America, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00990 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. STORZ & BICKEL America -- https://www.storz-bickel.com/en-us/ -- sell devices and parts and conduct repairs at the Oakland facility.[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 STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS: Drawdy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Structured Settlements Capital LLC. The case is styled as Thomas Drawdy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Structured Settlements Capital LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-61801-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Structured Settlement Capital, LLC is a limited liability company located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Howard Kanee, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1550 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 369-1122 Email: joseph@marcuszelman.com STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drawdy Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS DRAWDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS CAPITAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61802-RS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS CAPITAL LLC operates as a brokerage specialty finance origination firm that uses data, software, lead gen and proprietary management to support the provision of financing to the structured settlement transfer market. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 4000 Ponce De Leon, Suite 470 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (786) 369-1122 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 Email: joseph@marcuszelman.com SUNLIGHT SOLAR: Weschta Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunlight Solar Inc. The case is styled as Alexandra Weschta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunlight Solar Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01718-BEN-AHG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Sunlight Solar Inc. -- https://sunlightsolarinc.com/ -- are a local Southern California Solar Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com SYNERGY HEALTHCARE: Mark Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergy Healthcare Services, Inc. The case is styled as Debra Mark, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Synergy Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04224-TWT (N.D. Ga., Sept. 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Synergy Healthcare Services, Inc. -- http://synergyhealthcareservices.com/-- specialize in providing the highest level of professional support to post-acute operators across multiple states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J Bean, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP -NY 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Michael Ross Hirsh, Esq. HIRSH LAW OFFICE 2295 Towne Lake Pkwy, STE 116-181 Woodstock, GA 30189 Phone: (678) 653-9907 Email: Michael@Hirsh.law TD AMERITRADE: Schultz Sues Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------- David Schultz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No. 8:23-cv-00375-MDN (D. Neb., Aug. 23, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving the Defendants as a result of the Defendants' data security failures and the Data Breach, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, and Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual, present, concrete injuries. The Defendants failed to reasonably secure, monitor, and maintain Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") provided by consumers, including, without limitation, names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, dates of birth, other government identification numbers, and other personal identifiers of consumers stored on their private network. As a result, Plaintiff and other consumers suffered present injury and damages in the form of identity theft, loss of value of their PII, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the unauthorized access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal misuse of their sensitive and highly personal information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendants' conduct in breaching these duties amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members and warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendants' inadequate information security practices. The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by knowingly failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a "Notice of Data Breach" letter dated August 3, 2023, on August 22, 2023 from "TD Ameritrade Client Services." The Defendants are domestic for-profit financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 282-4806 Email: atate@peifferwolf.com TESLA INC: Fails to Safeguard Employees' Personal Info, Cobb Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL COBB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC., doing business as TESLA MOTORS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-03665-JMG (E.D. Pa., Sept. 20, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to safeguard its employees' highly sensitive personal identifying information in a data breach that occurred on May 10, 2023. According to the complaint, despite being aware of the Data Breach in May 2023, Tesla failed to take any action to notify the Plaintiff or other Class Members of the Data Breach until at least August 23, 2023. Based on the statements of Tesla to date, a variety of PII was implicated in the Data Breach, including names, Social Security Numbers, and birthdates. As a direct and proximate result of Tesla's inadequate data security measures, and its breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable care, the PII of the Plaintiff and the Class Members have been accessed by hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at increased and impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their financial privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, the lawsuit asserts. Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. Additionally, the Plaintiff and Class Members have also lost the value of their PII, for which there is an established marketplace value, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, brings claims for negligence, breach of an implied contract, and breach of confidence, seeking actual and punitive damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. Jody Thomas López-Jacobs, Esq. FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0781 Facsimile: (833) 775-3450 E-mail: amilz@consumerslaw.com jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. Jordan Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com THOMSON HOSPITALITY: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomson Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Thomson Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06969 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thompson Hospitality -- https://www.thompsonhospitality.com/ -- is a minority-owned Food Service provider, and one of the largest Retail Food and Facilities Management companies in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com TN AUBURN LLC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TN Auburn, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TN Auburn, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08271 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TN Auburn LLC was registered at delaware on 23 Mar 2018 as a foreign limited liability company.[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 TREK BICYCLE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Espinal Says ------------------------------------------------------------ FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08294 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.trekbikes.com,, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION provides bikes and apparel products. The Company offers helmets, shoes, lights, and jerseys products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal TRUEACCORD CORP: Quinn-Davis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The case is styled as Nina Quinn-Davis, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-23590-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is the industry-leading recovery and collections platform powered by machine learning and a consumer-friendly digital experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. 1971 SW 179th Avenue Miramar, FL 33029 Phone: (954) 319-7519 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com - and - Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 628-5793 Fax: (954) 507-9974 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com jibrael@jibraellaw.com UNITED AIRLINES: Class Suit Over ADA Violation Withdrawn -------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a legally blind woman voluntarily dropped a class action lawsuit against United Airlines in which she argued the airline failed to make its website fully accessible to and independently usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The woman claimed United violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by allegedly denying individuals who are blind or visually impaired with equal access to the goods and services offered on its website. The decision to permanently dismiss the class action lawsuit with prejudice followed a stipulated dismissal filing made the same day the woman was set to respond to United's attempt to toss the claim. United argued it was protected from the claims by plain language within the ADA and it would make more sense for its conduct to be governed by the Air Carrier Access Act, which the airline alleged does not include a private right of action. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Appeals Cert. Ruling in COVID Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- wfsu.org reports that the University of South Florida is appealing a decision by a Hillsborough County circuit judge to certify a class action in a lawsuit about whether the school should return fees to students because of a campus shutdown early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Attorneys for the university filed a notice that is a first step in appealing the decision by Circuit Judge Darren Farfante. As is common, the notice does not detail arguments USF will make at the 2nd District Court of Appeal. But Farfante last month approved a request by named plaintiff Valerie Marie Moore to certify a class action that would apply to students enrolled at USF in 2020 and the spring semester of 2021. The lawsuit is one of numerous cases in Florida and across the country seeking refunds of money that students paid for services that were not provided because of the pandemic. The 2nd District Court of Appeal last year refused a request by USF to dismiss the case. Farfante approved class certification despite objections from the university. "The court concludes that the proposed class is certifiable as a damages class because common issues concerning USF's uniform course of conduct, which resulted in all students being treated the exact same way and suffering the same type of readily quantifiable damages, predominate over individual questions about the amounts of fees paid by individual students," Farfante's Aug. 14 order said. "A damages class is also the superior method to adjudicate this controversy because it allows the students, who all have small claims for damages, the ability to prosecute their claims in a manageable and effective manner." [GN] UPGRADE INC: Dieffenbach Sues to Recover Overcharges ---------------------------------------------------- Ken Dieffenbach and Jennifer Gammage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UPGRADE, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01427-MWB (M.D. Pa., Aug. 25, 2023), is brought to recover the overcharges Upgrade caused Plaintiffs and thousands of other Pennsylvania residents to pay. Pennsylvania "has a long history, dating back to colonial times, of outlawing annual interest rates above 6%." That history is codified in two laws: the Loan Interest and Protection Act ("LIPL"); and the Consumer Discount Company Act ("CDCA"). Upgrade is a non-bank that is not licensed under Pennsylvania law, but routinely issues loans to Pennsylvania consumers with rates that exceed Pennsylvania's 6% cap. Upgrade knows this conduct is unlawful, but to make it appear as though the laws applicable to non-banks do not apply, Upgrade pays a state-chartered bank--Cross River Bank—to identify itself as the lender of the loans Upgrade issues in Pennsylvania. Other than renting its name to Upgrade, Cross River has no real involvement in the loans Upgrade makes to Pennsylvania residents. This is a "rent-a-bank" scheme, and it is unlawful. Upgrade cannot evade Pennsylvania law by having a bank "listed as the nominal lender" on Upgrade's loans contracts. This is well-established as a matter of state and federal law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs obtained an "Upgraded" branded loan. Upgrade is a corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Fax: (412) 626-7101 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com US ASSET MANAGEMENT: Mellese Files Suit in D. Texas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Asset Management Inc., et al. The case is styled as Fitsum Mellese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Asset Management Inc., Case No. DC-23-13615 (D. Tex., Dallas Cty., Aug. 25, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other (Civil)." US Asset Management, Inc. -- http://usasset.net/-- is a one-stop real estate investment company that specializes in the purchase, rehabilitation, and sale of homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Jon-William Bellinder, Esq. BELLINDER LAW FIRM 101 Windsor Blvd Brandon, MS 39042-7811 Phone: 601-487-9340 VIVEK 2024: Woods Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivek 2024, et al. The case is styled as Phillip Woods, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vivek 2024, Unknown Parties named as John & Jane Does 1-10; and Does 110, Case No. 2:23-cv-01958-DJH (D. Ariz., Sept. 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Vivek Ramaswamy (Vivek 2024) -- https://www.vivek2024.com/ -- announced his Republican presidential candidacy formally on Tucker Carlson Tonight, at an interview February 21, 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Laurence Phelps, Esq. PHELPS & MOORE PLLC - SCOTTSDALE 6424 E Greenway Pkwy., Ste. 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: (480) 534-1400 Fax: (480) 477-3900 Email: jon@phelpsandmoore.com W.L. YORK: Nicholson Appeals Final Judgment in Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Chanel E.M. Nicholson filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 21, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled CHANEL E.M. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff v. W.L. YORK, INC. d/b/a COVER GIRLS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-CV-2624, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston. This case primarily involves alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 based on racial discrimination. Plaintiff is African American and was a dancer who performed at adult entertainment clubs Centerfolds, Splendor, Cover Girls for varying periods of time between September 2013 and November 2017. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 12, 2021, asserting various claims for unlawful and intentional racial discrimination under Section 1981 against Centerfolds, Splendor, Cover Girls, and individuals Ali Davari and Hassan Davari, who allegedly owned the clubs. After amending her complaint several times, Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint asserted causes of action for breach of contract and discrimination under Section 1981. In response to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, Defendants filed their Fourth Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion. In that Order, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs claims as they pertained to Centerfolds, Ali Davari, and Hassan Davari for failure to state a claim and her Section 1981 claims because they were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Of Plaintiffs remaining claims, the Court found that Plaintiff plausibly alleged: (1)a Section 1981 claim against Cover Girls from when she was "barred" from the club in November 2017, (2) a breach of contract claim against Cover Girls from November 2017, and (3) a Section 1981 failure to hire claim against Splendor from 2021. The Defendants then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs three remaining claims that survived their Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, Defendants contended that all three of Plaintiffs claims are time barred or fail on the merits. The Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, dismissed the case with prejudice, and entered a Final Judgment. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Grant of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). On August 21, 2023, Judge Andrew S. Hanen denied Plaintiff's motion. The appellate case is captioned as Nicholson v. W.L. York, Case No. 23-20440, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on September 12, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Chanel E.M. Nicholson, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, is represented by: Eric Paul Mirabel, Esq. 3783 Darcus Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 772-3794 Defendants-Appellees W.L. York, Incorporated, doing business as Cover Girls, and D WG FM, Incorporated, doing business as Splendor, are represented by: William King, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON, L.L.P. 1001 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-3840 - and - Casey T. Wallace, Esq. WALLACE & ALLEN, L.L.P. 440 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002-1652 Telephone: (713) 227-1744 WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Wells Suit Over Pink Eye Drops' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANDY WELLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02128 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's "Pink Eye Drops" represented as able to "Relieve redness, burning, watery discharge & sensation of grittiness," with "No harsh vasoconstrictors," "Homeopathic," and "Sterile," is false, deceptive, and misleading, in violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, in September 2023, the Food and Drug Administration warned the Defendant that the Product was misbranded and adulterated, such that its sale to consumers as safe and effective was false, deceptive and misleading. The Product is not generally recognized as safe and effective to "Relieve redness, burning, watery discharge & sensation of grittiness," or provide the other benefits listed on its website, because it has not been evaluated by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to render such a Determination, says the suit. The Product is misbranded because it is marketed to consumers as if it were safe, even though its use poses a public health risk. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately $7.99 per 0.33 oz (10 mL), excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions. The Plaintiff expected the Product would be safe, because it was marketed as "Sterile" and having "No harsh vasoconstrictors." However, the Product was not safe, because it contained ingredients such as silver sulfate, which cause negative effects in eyes, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff purchased the Product between September 2019 and the present, at Walgreens stores in Lee County. The Defendant owns, controls, and operates Walgreens, America's largest chain of pharmacies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com WEBSTAURANT STORE: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Webstaurant Store. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Webstaurant Store, Case No. 1:23-cv-00996 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. WebstaurantStore -- https://www.webstaurantstore.com/ -- is an online restaurant supply company based in Lititz, Pennsylvania.[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 WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Ruling in Gollman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Wendy's International LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the court's Aug. 11, 2023 Decision and Order entered in the lawsuit styled LEAH GOLLMAN, Plaintiff v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL LLC, THE WENDY'S COMPANY, WENDY'S OLD FASHIONED HAMBURGERS OF NEW YORK, LLC, WENDY'S RESTAURANTS OF NEW YORK, LLC, Defendant, Index No. 653783/2022, in the U.S. Supreme Court of the New York County. Gollman commenced the action on Oct. 12, 2022 and filed an Amended Complaint on May 12, 2023. She asserts three causes of action: a class claim for uniform maintenance pay, an individual claim under Section 195(1) of the New York Labor Law alleging failure to provide wage notice, and an individual claim under Section 193(3) of the New York Labor Law alleging failure to provide wage statements. The Defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that CPLR 901(b) prevents Gollman from maintaining it as a class claim. Gollman opposed the motion. Gollman was employed at the Wendy's restaurant located at 714 Third Avenue in Manhattan from April 2014 through July 2022. The Defendants are alleged to have jointly operated the restaurant from at least 2014 through May 2022, at which time a franchisee assumed ownership and control over the restaurant. An hourly employee, Gollman performed tasks such as food preparation, transaction processing, and maintenance of the restaurant's cleanliness that allegedly required her uniform to be cleaned after each shift. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Lori S. Sattler of the Supreme Court of the New York denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first cause of action in the Amended Complaint. Judge Sattler held that recovery for nonpayment of the wages is effectuated pursuant to Labor Law Section 663(1). The first cause of action alleges the Defendants failed to pay putative class members wages required under the Uniform Maintenance Pay Order. Should the class members prevail, they would be entitled to recover the supplemental wages they were not paid by the Defendants. These would amount to actual compensatory damages, rather than a fixed minimum amount. Furthermore, Judge Sattler held that it is well-established that class treatment is appropriate for claims of systemic wage violations, and the Court has routinely allowed class claims to proceed for alleged violations of minimum wage orders like the Uniform Maintenance Pay Order at issue in this action. The Defendants fail to cite any applicable authority to the contrary. They therefore fail to conclusively show that Gollman's class claim lacks any basis as a matter of law. Judge Sattler ordered the Defendants to file and serve an Answer to the Amended Complaint within 20 days of service of a copy of her Decision and Order. The appellate case is captioned as Leah Gollman vs. Wendy's International LLC et al., Case No. 2023-04600, in the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on September 12, 2023.[BN] WHALECO INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Hu Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- ERIC HU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WHALECO, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-06962-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to secure and safeguard its customers' personal data, including name, address, email address, phone number, financial information (credit card information) and biometrics data (fingerprinting), enabling hackers to steal personal and financial data from the Defendant and put Class members' personal and financial information at serious and ongoing risk. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant grossly failed to comply with security standards and allowed its customers' financial information to be compromised, all in an effort to save money by cutting corners on security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the Breach. The Defendant also allegedly failed to uncover and disclose the extent of the Breach and notify its affected customers of the Breach in a timely manner. Furthermore, by failing to provide adequate notice, the Defendant prevented Class members from protecting themselves from the Breaches. The Plaintiff further brings this proposed class action against the Defendant for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.temu.com. Through the use of its in-app browser, Temu has secretly and invasively amassed massive amounts of extremely private information and data about its users by tracking their activity on third-party websites. The Plaintiff brings this action for every violation of the Wiretap Act which provides for statutory damages of the greater of $10,000 or $100 per day for each violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq. under 18 U.S.C. section 2520. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other members of the Class, asserts claims for breach of implied contract and seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law. Mr. Hu is a citizen of the State of New York. He registered with Temu in August 2023, and made purchases from Temu during that time. Temu is an online marketplace operated by the Chinese e-commerce company PDD Holdings Inc. and headquartered in Boston.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com - and - James Chung, Esq. CHUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 43-22 216th Street Bayside, NY 11361 Telephone: (718) 461-8808 E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSCOIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Road, Suite 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com WHEN THE SHOE FITS: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against When The Shoe Fits, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. When The Shoe Fits, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08265 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. When The Shoe Fits -- https://whentheshoefits.com/ -- is a full-service men's and women's shoe store and pedorthic center.[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 WILLIAM PAINTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrantes Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN MORA BARRANTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WILLIAM PAINTING & CONTRACTING, LLC; and WILLIAM PICADO ROJAS, Individually, Defendants, Case No. e 2:23-cv-20459 (D.N.J., Sept. 18, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Barrantes was employed by the Defendants as a painter. WILLIAM PAINTING & CONTRACTING, LLC is engaged in the home improvement business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com aglenn@jaffeglenn.com WINCO HOLDINGS: Gomez Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Hugo Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CV-20-003604 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02024-CKD. The Complaint alleged causes of action for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to comply with Cal. Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; waiting time penalties; violation of Cal. Labor Code; failure to pay all wages for alternative workweeks; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kristina Launey, Esq. Michael Kopp, Esq. Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Stanislaus, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: klauney@seyfarth.com mkopp@seyfarth.com pebsworth@seyfarth.com XOOM ENERGY: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Mirkin Suit ----------------------------------------------------- XOOM Energy, LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled SUSANNA MIRKIN and BORIS MIRKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XOOM ENERGY, LLC, and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02949-ARR-RER, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint was removed from the New York State Supreme Court County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on May 17, 2018. Plaintiffs Susanna Mirkin and Boris Mirkin, a married couple residing together in Brooklyn, bring the putative class action against XOOM. They assert claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment arising from their March 2013 agreement to obtain residential electricity services from XOOM, an independent energy service company. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order dated August 14, 2023 granting in part and denying in part Xoom's motion for summary judgment. On August 31, 2023, Judge Ross signed an Order granting Plaintiff's March 24, 2023 motion to certify class. Judge Ross certified the proposed class, appointed Susanna Mirkin as class representative, and appointed Wittels McIntuff Palikovic as lead class counsel. The appellate case is captioned as Mirkin v. XOOM Energy, LLC, Case No. 23-1267, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Sept. 14, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners XOOM Energy, LLC, et al., are represented by: Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP 1001 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 337-5580 Plaintiff-Respondent Susanna Mirkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Steven L. Wittels, Esq. WITTELS LAW, P.C. 18 Half Mile Road Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 319-9945 ZIPPO MANUFACTURING: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zippo Manufacturing Company. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Zippo Manufacturing Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00991 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zippo -- https://www.zippo.com/ -- is a reusable metal lighter produced by Zippo Manufacturing Company of Bradford, Pennsylvani.[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 ZIX CORPORATION: Kuchel Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carla Kuchel, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Zix Corporation, Case No. 2023-CA-2485 was removed from Circuit Court 5th Judicial Circuit Lake County Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Sept. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00572-JSM-PRL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Zix Corp -- https://zix.com/ -- is a provider of security software for organizations in the healthcare, financial services, insurance, and government sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 628-5793 Fax: (954) 507-9974 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Fax: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam Louis Schwartz, Esq. Vedder Price P.C. 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 741-3200 Fax: (786) 741-3202 Email: aschwartz@vedderprice.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***