/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231027.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 27, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 216 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Leaks Customer Data, Class Action Suits Claim 3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Monaghan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Town of Campbell Residents File Two PFAS Class Suits 3M COMPANY: Voden Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams A-C ELECTRIC COMPANY: Ruenzel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACI WORLDWIDE: AG Leads $10-Million Deal in Testing Error Suit ACI WORLDWIDE: Connecticut Led $20-Mil. Deal in Testing Error Suit ADIRONDACK GUITAR: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AG MURRIETA SNF: Silvia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALDER HOLDINGS: Roig Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: $125MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 20 ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Delgado Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Shnayder Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings ALTRIA GROUP: Maine Township HS Gets $44,904 Award in Class Action AMAZON.COM INC: Monopolistic Practices Harm Consumers, Hopper Says AMWARE FULFILLMENT: Motto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ANDY BABIUK'S: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Class Suit Over Unlawful Recording Pending in N.D. Cal. APPLE INC: Dozens of Consumers Join AirTag Class Action ASCENSION HEALTH: McGuire Sues Over Registered Nurses' Unpaid OT ASHLEY VALLEY MEDICAL: Janssen Suit Removed to C.D. California BAKKT HOLDINGS: $3MM Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 27 BAYER HEALTHCARE: Class Action Over Recalled Products Pending BELIMED INC: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Class Suit BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Class Suit Over Labeling BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit Over Labeling BNY MELLON: Bernard Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 3rd Cir. BROKER SOLUTIONS: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri BSH HOME: Says Emissions Class Suit Meritless, Barred C & N MANUFACTURING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CADENCE BANK: Marsh Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi CALIFORNIA DAIRIES: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California CANADA: MLA Sturko Shows Support for Female Police Officers' Suit CAPSTONE GREEN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 12 CAROL A. MICI: Santiago Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. CATHAY PACIFIC: Pilots Face Off on Individual Wage Deal Releases CENTENE CORPORATION: Samuel Files Suit in D. Delaware CENTERSTATE BANK: OK Hearing for Settlement Set for Nov. 30 CHICK-FIL-A INC: OKs to $4.4M Settlement Over Delivery Fees Suit COKER UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COSTCO WHOLESALE: Castillo et al. Sue Over Unlawful Info Disclosure DERMTECH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 15 DERRICK TODD: 120 Ex-Patients Join Sexual Assault Class Action DLOCAL LIMITED: Francis Sues Over Misleading Business Statements EISENHOWER MEDICAL: Collects Data Without Consent, Suit Says ELECTROCORE INC: Shareholder Suit Over IPO Dismissed EMBARK TECHNOLOGIES: $2.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 8 EMPOWER FINANCE: Faces Mcfadden Suit Over Spam Text Messages EMS MANAGEMENT: Murray Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina EMS MANAGEMENT: Robinson Suit Removed to D. Sorth Carolina ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Supreme Ct. Declines to Hear ERISA Suit Appeal ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Morgan Sues Over Eyewear Market Monopoly FINCHEY CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acosta Suit Alleges FLORIDA: Class Suit Over Transgender Medical Treatments Certified FRANCESCA'S ACQUISITION: Faces Suit Over January 2023 Data Breach FRIDAY PLANS: Faces Nash Suit Over Prerecorded Messages GAMESTOP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Free Shipping Claims GOOGLE LLC: Faces Consolidated Adtech Claims in UK's CAT GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of AI Data Scraping Class Action GRIECO HYUNDAI: RI Federal Court Rules Waivers Not Enforceable HELIX ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Engineers' Unpaid OT INMEDIATA HEALTH: Resolves Multi-State Data Breach Investigation IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Appeal Dismissal Order Rebuffed JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Chavez Sues Over False Ads on Decongestants KENVUE INC: Ozuzu Sues Over Ineffective Decongestant Products LGL SYSTEMS: Cook Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty From Merger MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Seeks to Seal Portions of Documents META PLATFORMS: School Corp. Joins Suit Over Addictive Features MOM'S BEST: "Real Honey" Claims in Cereals Disputed in Class Suit MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Ex-Homeowners File Suit Over Foreclosures NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Antitrust Scrutiny, Two Class Actions NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Trial Begins in Suit Over Buyer Commissions NEARLY NATURAL: Elder Sues Over Caller ID Rule Violations NEW YORK, NY: Carter Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates NEW YORK, NY: Kelly Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates NEW YORK, NY: Medina Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discloses Private Info to 3rd Party, Frawley Says ONTARIO: Superior Court Grants Discontinuance of PST Class Action PER SE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Branson Alleges PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kennedy Claims PROSPECT MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Stradinger Says PROSPECT MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Private Data from Hackers PROSPECT MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Private Info, Mateo Suit Says ROMAN CATHOLIC: Sued Over Students With Disabilities Discrimination SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over SmartTag Tracking Devices SANOFI GENZYME: Judge Allows Final Amendment of Fabrazyme Suit SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces Suit Over Misleading Nonstick Cookware SLEEPY'S LLC: Gundell Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. STANDARD WELL: Resio Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Canizales Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Calls TEP ROCKY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Jolley Suit to 10th Cir. TH PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Geer Suit Alleges TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: "Mass Arbitration" Class Suit on Hold TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Vehicle Filters U.S. STEEL: Must Face Mon Valley Residents' Air Pollution Suit UNITED STATES: Sen. Durbin Comments on Immigration Settlement UNITED STATES: Settles Migrant Families' Class Action v. Trump VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Faw Suit Seeks Refund of Tuitions and Fees WALGREENS BOOTS: To Settle Rite Aid Investors' Merger Claims WASHINGTON POST: Faces Suit Over Misleading Subscription Prices WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Appluewhite Says ZYMERGEN INC: December 5 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set [*] Germany Adopts New Type of Consumer Protection Class Action [*] PFAS Manufacturers Seek Reverse of Class Cert. Ruling [*] U.S. Employment Discrimination Suit Filings in 2023 Up by 50% [*] Wash. Employers Face Class Suits Over Pay Range Disclosure Law Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Reset J&J's Motion to Erase PI Lawsuit ********* 23ANDME INC: Leaks Customer Data, Class Action Suits Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- SCMedia reports that numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against major U.S. biotechnology and genetic testing firm 23andMe following a a leak of customer data believed to be tied to credential stuffing attacks that compromised information from almost 1 million Ashkenazi Jews, BleepingComputer reports. Initially exposed data included Ashkenazi Jews' full names, birthdates, sex, DNA profiles, and location information, as well as account IDs, which was shared by other threat actors even after the retraction of the original hacker, who commenced the sale of stolen 23andMe profiles instead. Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Jews who lived in Central or Eastern Europe. In a statement to SC Media from 23andMe, sent on Oct. 17, the company emphasized, at this time, it does not believe it was breached and that it did "not have any indication at this time that there has been a data security incident within our systems." However, it does acknowledge that hackers may have used recycled user credentials to illicitly access customer accounts. The company statement to SC Media echoed a 23andMe an Oct. 6 blog post to its' website (updated on Oct. 9) stating: "Our ongoing investigation found that threat actors were able to access certain user accounts in instances where users recycled login credentials -- that is, usernames and passwords that were used on 23andMe.com were the same as those used on other websites that have been previously hacked. However, we do not have any indication at this time that there has been a data security incident within our systems, or that 23andMe was the source of the account credentials used in these attacks." The company believes that a credential stuffing attack allowed hackers to access accounts of customers that opted into its sharing through DNA Relatives feature. This allowed adversaries to compile a list of customers who had also opted into this feature, allowing the compilation of specific user profiles. In at least one complaint filed against the firm, lawyers argue 23andMe failed to provide adequate information regarding the incident for the betterment and safety of customer data. It also alleges the company did not have adequate security protections that could have mitigated the attack. A list of lawsuits, reported by BleepingComputer, (Santana, Eden, Andrizzi, Lamons) each seek relief for "the damage done by 23andMe's failure to protect their data." Financial relief, including lifetime credit monitoring, restitution, compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, and attorney's fees coverage, have been sought by the plaintiffs behind the class action lawsuits against 23andMe. UPDATE: On 10/17/23 at 11am ET this article was updated to amplify 23andMe's position that it was not breached, rather a victim of a credential stuffing attack. The University of Michigan had data from its students, applicants, alumni, employees, donors, patients, and research study participants compromised after its network was breached in late August, according to BleepingComputer. [GN] 3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ----------------------------------------------------------- Wesley Davis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05120-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 12, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Monaghan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- George Monaghan, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05119-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 12, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with throat cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Town of Campbell Residents File Two PFAS Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- WXOW reports that a pair of class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Town of Campbell residents against both the City of La Crosse and nearly two dozen companies it claims are to blame for its PFAS water contamination. The complaints claim that companies like 3-M, Tyco Fire, DuPont, and more, distributed firefighting foam to airports like La Crosse that they allegedly knew for five decades had toxic effects if released into the environment where they could seep into groundwater and them be consumed. This created an increased risk for health issues including cancer. Both the companies and city are being sued for property damage caused by the contamination and medical monitoring and to create an early detection program for diseases related to exposure to what's known as 'forever chemicals.' The claims were filed in federal court in Madison. [GN] 3M COMPANY: Voden Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Voden, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05118-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 12, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 A-C ELECTRIC COMPANY: Ruenzel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A-C ELECTRIC COMPANY. The case is styled as Karri Ruenzel and Anthony Cancio, on behalf of others similarly situated v. A-C ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No. BCV-23-103407 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 11, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." A-C Electric Company -- https://www.a-celectric.com/ -- is a Central Valley electrical contractor with 70 years' experience.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M Genish, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 855-786-6355 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com ACI WORLDWIDE: AG Leads $10-Million Deal in Testing Error Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Strawberry on Oct. 17 disclosed that Attorney General Michelle Henry joined a coalition of 50 Attorneys General announcing a $10 million settlement with ACI Worldwide, a payment processor whose testing error in 2021 resulted in unauthorized withdrawals, and attempted withdrawals, of more than $2 billion from mortgage holders. ACI was a third-party vendor for Nationstar Mortgage (known publicly as Mr. Cooper) when the withdrawals happened in April 2021. While many of the withdrawals did not go through, or were reversed, 1.4 million transactions were processed and 477,000 consumers were impacted. Pennsylvania will receive $270,726 from the settlement -- $260,726 in civil penalties and $10,000 in costs. Consumers who were impacted have already been notified by the class action settlement administrator. "We are holding ACI accountable for its massive payment processing error, which caused consumers to incur overdraft and other fees, and emotional distress caused by losing hard-earned dollars through no fault of their own," Attorney General Henry said. "The significant penalties ACI is paying sends a strong message to the industry: treat customer data with great care and never use customer data to conduct tests unless there are no reasonable alternatives." An investigation determined the processing error was caused by significant defects in ACI's privacy and data security procedures and technical infrastructure related to the payment platform. The settlement requires ACI to take steps to avoid any future incidents, including requiring ACI to use artificially created data rather than real consumer data when testing systems or software, and requiring ACI to segregate any testing or development work from its consumer payment systems. On April 23, 2021, ACI was testing the Speedpay payment platform when it mistakenly submitted consumer data from Mr. Cooper mortgage holders into the ACH system which allows customers to make an online payment from their bank. This resulted in ACI attempting to withdraw mortgage payments from Mr. Cooper customers on a day that was not authorized or expected. In many cases, consumers were subjected to the attempted withdrawal of multiple mortgage payments from their personal bank accounts. While ACI took corrective steps to minimize the impact of the testing error, in some cases, consumers were not able to access the money at issue and were forced to incur overdraft or insufficient funds fees. Impacted consumers have received restitution from ACI and through other related settlements. The Office of Attorney General's work on this investigation was led by Assistant Director for Consumer Financial Protection Nicholas F. B. Smyth. Consumers who were impacted and notified of the class action settlement must submit their claim form by November 13, 2023. More information on the settlement is available at https://ACHLoanPaymentLitigation.com/ and by phone at (855) 645-0554. [GN] ACI WORLDWIDE: Connecticut Led $20-Mil. Deal in Testing Error Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attorney General William Tong and Department of Banking Commissioner Jorge Perez on Oct. 17 led a coalition of 50 states and territories announcing a $20 million settlement with payment processor ACI Worldwide over a 2021 testing error that led to the unauthorized withdrawal of $2.3 billion from Nationstar Mortgage (also known as Mr. Cooper) customers. Connecticut will receive $558,740 from the settlement, which includes a $220,000 additional payment due to Connecticut's leadership role in the multistate, multi-agency action. ACI is a payment processor for a variety of third-party clients, including mortgage servicers. Mr. Cooper offered ACI's Speedpay product for its customers to schedule their monthly mortgage payments, enabling automatic transfers of authorized mortgage payments from their personal bank accounts to Mr. Cooper. The violations occurred on April 23, 2021 when ACI Payments erroneously used live customer data in a test of its Speedpay platform, causing unexpected and sometimes multiple mortgage payments from customer accounts. In some cases, these transactions exposed consumers to overdraft or insufficient funds fees. While the vast majority of withdrawals did not go through, 1.4 million transactions totaling $2.3 billion were processed, impacting 480,000 Mr. Cooper customers. In Connecticut, 7,136 consumers were impacted. ACI took immediate corrective steps to minimize the impact of the testing error and all accounts were ultimately restored. In addition to the $20 million payment to the states, today's multistate settlement requires ACI to use artificially created data rather than real consumer data when testing systems or software, and further requires the company to segregate any testing, development or quality insurance work from its consumer systems. The agreement additionally mandates regular reporting (for two years) to a state regulator monitoring committee to ensure both the adequacy of the risk management programs and compliance with the order. State financial regulators including the Connecticut Department of Banking license and supervise over 33,000 nonbank financial services companies through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), including mortgage companies, money services businesses, consumer finance providers and debt collectors. Connecticut consumers can submit complaints about nonbank financial services companies by contacting the Connecticut Department of Banking at https://portal.ct.gov/DOB/Consumer/Consumer-Complaints/Consumer-Assistance or calling 860-240-8170. Consumers can also verify that a company is licensed to do business in their state, and view past enforcement actions, by visiting NMLS Consumer Access. "Any financial institution with access to billions of dollars needs robust and redundant security measures. ACI's unauthorized withdrawals resulted in massive chaos and confusion, exposing consumers to overdraft fees. Connecticut helped to lead this major multistate investigation and settlement, forcing significant penalties and strong security measures going forward to ensure this error is never repeated," said Attorney General Tong. "I congratulate the coalition of states, and more specifically the staff from Connecticut in addressing this issue and making sure consumers remain protected and made hold when their accounts were erroneously debited. The remedies found in this agreement are intended to prevent future errors from occurring not only with mortgage-holders serviced by Mr. Cooper but throughout the industry," said Banking Commissioner Jorge Perez. "Companies with access to billions of dollars and consumer information have a duty to respect consumer trust and protect their confidential financial information," said Department of Consumer Protection Commissioner Bryan T. Cafferelli. "We are hopeful this settlement will prevent any similar issues in the future." Impacted consumers have received direct compensation from a separate class action settlement. For more information on the class action settlement, visit here: https://achloanpaymentlitigation.com/ Additionally, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a $25 million penalty and consent order against ACI requiring the company to commit to consumer safeguards. Connecticut and Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas and Washington led the multistate coalition. Assistant Attorney General Amor Rosario and Deputy Associate Attorney General Phil Miller, Chief of the Finance Section, assisted the Attorney General in this matter. [GN] ADIRONDACK GUITAR: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adirondack Guitar, LLC. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Adirondack Guitar, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08987-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adirondack Guitar -- https://www.adkguitar.com/ -- offers a unique blend of new, used, and vintage guitars.[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 AG MURRIETA SNF: Silvia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AG MURRIETA SNF, LLC. The case is styled as Solis Silvia a.k.a. Silvia Barrera individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AG MURRIETA SNF, LLC, Case No. 23STCV24774 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 11, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." AG Murrieta Snf LLC -- https://murrietahcc.com/ -- was founded in 2013. The company's line of business includes the operation of non-classifiable establishments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com ALDER HOLDINGS: Roig Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Jason Roig, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00721 (D. Utah, Oct. 11, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's intentional and willful misclassification which deprived Plaintiff and hundreds of other employees of federal overtime wages. The Defendant required Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks. The Defendant required Plaintiff to work an average of 60 hours per week. During his employment as a Field Service Technician, Plaintiff was required to wear the following Alder uniform. During his employment as a Field Service Technician, Plaintiff was required to wear the following Alder identification badge and lanyard. The Defendant required Plaintiff and other Field Service Technicians to wear these uniforms and identification badges so that customers would believe the Field Service Technicians were Alder employees. The Defendant compensated Plaintiff and other Field Service Technicians a flat rate based on the number of projects completed. During his employment, Defendant compensated Plaintiff a flat rate of $50.00 per completed project regardless of how long the project would take the complete. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated Field Service Technicians as "independent contractors" even though the economic realities of the work relationship demonstrated that Plaintiff and the Field Service Technicians were Defendant's employees. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated Field Service Technicians in an effort to avoid federal overtime wage obligations under the FLSA. In April of 2023, Defendant attempted to change Plaintiff's status from "independent contractor" to a "W-2 Employee." However, Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff federal overtime wages during one or more workweeks when he worked more than 40 hours. Defendant failed to comply with the record-keeping requirements under FLSA concerning the number of hours worked by Plaintiff and the compensation paid to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's last day working for Defendant was on or about April 18, 2023, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in various locations in the United States. The Defendant is a home security door-to-door sales company that relies on Field Service Technicians to install and otherwise perform maintenance on a number of devices it sells across the country including, but not limited to, touchscreen panels, indoor and outdoor cameras, and door and window sensors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Galvez, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 222 S. Main Street, Suite 537 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (689) 216-7762 Fax: (689) 216-7812 Email: jgalvez@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 327-5355 Email: afiisch@forthepeople.com ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: $125MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC issued a statement regarding notice of a proposed class action settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Civ. No. 3:16-cv-02127 (AWT) Plaintiff, Hon. Alvin W. Thompson vs. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL, DAVID L. HALLAL, VIKAS SINHA, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Alexion" or the "Company") from January 30, 2014 to May 26, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, that Court-appointed Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Class, and Alexion, Leonard Bell, David L. Hallal, and Vikas Sinha (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $125,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Alvin W. Thompson, either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on December 20, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. at the Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building, United States Courthouse, South Courtroom, 450 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of September 11, 2023; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Class Members; and (iv) approve Co-Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.AlexionSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Alexion Securities Litigation c/o KCC Class Action Services P.O. Box 301170 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170 www.AlexionSecuritiesSettlement.com (866) 573-1726 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Class Counsel: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Michael H. Rogers, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 MOTLEY RICE LLC Gregg S. Levin, Esq. 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 www.motleyrice.com alexionsettlementquestions@motleyrice.com (855) 481-8480 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than December 15, 2023. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than November 29, 2023. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than November 29, 2023. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: October 17, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Delgado Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings ------------------------------------------------------------- Allbirds, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on May 16, 2023, the company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit, captioned "Delgado v. Allbirds, Inc., et al.," Case No. 23-cv-02372-AMO, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Said lawsuit alleges violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sections 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially false and/or misleading statements about its business, operations and prospects seeking damages in an unspecified amount. On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating said case, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving lead plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel. Allbirds, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a global lifestyle brand that innovates with naturally-derived materials to make better footwear and apparel products in a better way, while treading lighter on our planet. The majority of its revenue is from sales directly to consumers via its digital and store channels. ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Shnayder Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings -------------------------------------------------------------- Allbirds, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on April 13, 2023, the company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit captioned "Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., et al.," Case No. 23-cv-01811-AMO. Said lawsuit alleges violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sections 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially false and/or misleading statements about its business, operations and prospects seeking damages in an unspecified amount. On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating said case, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving lead plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel. Allbirds, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a global lifestyle brand that innovates with naturally-derived materials to make better footwear and apparel products in a better way, while treading lighter on our planet. The majority of its revenue is from sales directly to consumers via its digital and store channels. ALTRIA GROUP: Maine Township HS Gets $44,904 Award in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Maine South High School on Oct. 17 disclosed that Maine Township High School District 207 was recently awarded $44,904 in a class action lawsuit against Altria Group, the former parent group of e-cigarette manufacturer Juul Labs, Inc. District 207 was one of more than 1,500 school districts and 30 education agencies across the United States involved in the suit. The total settlement was for $168.25 million. This settlement comes on the heels of an earlier settlement with Juul where the district was awarded $149,115.28. The two settlements combine for more than $194,000 to District 207. District 207 found that the student use of e-cigarettes cost the district significant money in the form of staff time, disciplinary proceedings and other costs. "We are pleased to receive settlements from both Juul, and now Altria, the parent company of Juul, in the class action vaping lawsuit. Altria knowingly targeted young people in its recent efforts with vaping, and the damage of those efforts is still here and will be long lasting. What's important in this is that companies that target our students to profit from knowingly harmful practices, like what has occurred with the Juul vaping phenomenon, can and will be held accountable," said Dr. Ken Wallace, District 207 Superintendent. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Monopolistic Practices Harm Consumers, Hopper Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER HOPPER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01523 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 3, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for price fixing, monopolization, and for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Cartwright Act. According to the complaint, Amazon uses its chokehold on the online shopping market to improperly impose a price floor and separate customers from their hard-earned money through anticompetitive and unfair means. This case seeks to restore what Amazon has unlawfully obtained by exercising their monopoly power and to enjoin Amazon from doing further harm to consumers. Rather than fostering a free and competitive e-commerce economy, Amazon chose the path of quick and unfettered profits by unlawfully exercising their monopolistic powers in violation of antitrust law. Ultimately, Amazon's conduct has artificially inflated prices across the online marketplace, degraded the quality of online shopping, hindered consumers from comparison-shopping, suppressed the flow of useful price and quality information to shoppers, reduced consumer choice by hindering competitive options, and deprived consumers of the benefits of innovation, says the suit. Plaintiff Hopper purchased items on other websites, including Wayfair.com, which were also sold on Amazon, for an artificially inflated price as a result of Amazon's "price parity" policy. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karin Bornstein Swope, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 999 Northlake Way Ste 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 778-2123 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: kswope@cpmlegal.com - and - Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Adam Zapala, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com - and - Jeffrey G. Mudd, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 2716 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-2008 Facsimile: (310) 392-0111 E-mail: jmudd@cpmlegal.com AMWARE FULFILLMENT: Motto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Hernandez Motto, on behalf of the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. AMWARE FULFILLMENT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV24821 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 11, 2023), is brought pursuant to California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), to recover underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff regularly worked out of the Defendants' warehouse facility in VanNuys, California. The Plaintiff regularly worked at least 8 hours per day at least 5 to 6 days per week. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff an hourly rate for time counted by the Defendants as hours worked. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked by virtue of, the Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or improper meal periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee for three years through September 2022. The Defendants own, operate, and/or manage warehouses and/or facilities that help other businesses fulfill/ship and/or process e commerce orders among other related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Nikki Trenner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com nikki@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com ANDY BABIUK'S: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andy Babiuk's Fab Gear, LLC. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Andy Babiuk's Fab Gear, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08990 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Andy Babiuk's Fab Gear -- https://www.andybabiuksfabgear.com/ -- is a boutique guitar shop located in Rochester, New York.[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 APPLE INC: Class Suit Over Unlawful Recording Pending in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress for consumers and investors, is currently representing consumers in a class action against Apple for allegedly unlawfully recording users through its Siri voice assistant. The case is Lopez et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:19-cv-04577-JSW (N.D. Cal.) and is currently pending in the Northern District of California. If you purchased an Apple HomePod, you may be part of this case and have a claim. If you are or previously were an Apple HomePod user, and wish to participate, or learn more, click here, or please contact our attorneys at (914) 733-7272 or via email to Alesandra Greco ( agreco@lowey.com ). About Lowey Dannenberg Lowey Dannenberg is a national firm representing institutional and individual investors, who suffered financial losses resulting from corporate fraud and malfeasance in violation of federal securities and antitrust laws. The firm has significant experience in prosecuting multi-million-dollar lawsuits and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of its clients. Contact: Lowey Dannenberg P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 733-7234 Email: investigations@lowey.com [GN] APPLE INC: Dozens of Consumers Join AirTag Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that dozens of consumers have joined an Apple AirTag lawsuit, alleging that the manufacturer failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the small, inconspicuous tracking devices from being used by stalkers and abusers, pointing to a number of murders and other incidents that may have been avoided. Late last year, two women, Lauren Hughes and one identified only as Jane Doe, filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, over design problems that allegely allow AirTag devices to misused. However, in an amended complaint (PDF) filed on October 6, more than 31 additional plaintiffs signed on to the case, claiming the devices are being hidden in purses and clothes, or in cars, by those seeking to do harm or spy on people. The Apple AirTag is a small device about the size of a quarter, which is designed to be placed in luggage or wallets, so that the user can track an item if it gets lost through the company's "FindMy" App. Because it uses millions of other Apple devices as reference points, it is extremely accurate. However, plaintiffs say the small size and lack of safety features allows AirTags to easily be hidden in someone's belongings or vehicle without being noticed, allowing predators or abusers to track individuals for nefarious purposes, without providing sufficient warning. Apple AirTag Stalking Risks The lawsuit indicates that experts and advocates, like the National Network to End Domestic Violence, warned Apple that its design made the AirTag ripe for abuse, specifically by stalkers. However, the company claimed it had made the device "stalker proof" using technologies plaintiffs say have utterly failed. "The concerns were well founded. Immediately after the AirTag's release, and consistently since, reports have proliferated of people finding AirTags placed in their purses, in or on their cars, and even sewn into the lining of their clothes, by stalkers in order to track their whereabouts," the lawsuit states. "The consequences have been as severe as possible: multiple murders have occurred in which the murder used an AirTag to track the victim. Similarly, individuals have been murdered -- or murdered others -- when using AirTags to track down stolen property and confront the thieves." Some reports even indicate police have seen them used to track potential or current sex trafficking victims, the lawsuit notes. It also indicates AirTags have been used to stalk celebrities, ex-spouses, and the new partners of ex-spouses, all without individuals being aware they are being tracked, resulting in assaults and murders. "In January 2022, an Akron, Ohio woman was stalked by her ex-boyfriend, who buried an AirTag in the back pocket of the passenger seat in her car. The stalker used the AirTag to follow the woman and shoot her," the lawsuit notes. "In June of 2022, an Indianapolis woman hid an AirTag in her boyfriend's car, followed him to a bar, and ran him over with her car, killing him at the scene." The murdered man was the son of one of the newly signed-on plaintiffs. Apple AirTag "Stalker Proof" Technology Failed The lawsuit notes that Apple claimed the devices were "stalker proof" to assuage fears of abuse. However, the plaintiffs, and a number of investigative reports, have deemed that technology to be woefully inadequate. If an AirTag is moving in conjunction with another Apple device, such as an iPhone or iPad, the device will post a notification indicating an AirTag is in use nearby. However, when the AirTags were first rolled out, it would take up to 72 hours for someone to be notified after the AirTag had been detected moving with them. In addition, the warning was only given to those who had a device using the Apple ios operating system. Eventually, Apple reduced the time it took to receive a warning, but plaintiffs say it can still take up to 24 hours for their device to notify them of a nearby AirTag after it has been detected. The company has also partnered with Android to include the technology on those devices as well. However, plaintiffs and experts say that still leaves many gaps ripe for abuse, such as the person not having an Apple or iPad device or the appropriate app, and the fact that 24 hours is still too long a time to be vulnerable to an unknown tracking device. The plaintiffs seek class action status for the lawsuit, which presents claims of negligence, design defect, unjust enrichment, intrusion upon seclusion, negligence per se and violations of several California privacy and consumer protection laws. [GN] ASCENSION HEALTH: McGuire Sues Over Registered Nurses' Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MCGUIRE, individually and for others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH MINISTRY SERVICE CENTER, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01785-JMS-CSW (S.D. Ind., Oct. 3, 2023) arises from the Defendant's auto-deduction policy which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff McGuire and the Putative Class Members of overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. Plaintiff McGuire worked for Ascension as a registered nurse at Ascension's Sacred Heart Bay facility in Panama City, Florida from approximately July 2021 until August 2022. Like the Putative Class Members, she regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But Ascension did not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, Ascension automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' recorded work time for so-called "meal breaks," the Plaintiff says. Ascension Health Ministry Service Center, LLC is a provider of HR, supply chain, and financial services to Ascension, the largest nonprofit health system in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com ASHLEY VALLEY MEDICAL: Janssen Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Barbara Janssen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashley Valley Medical Center LLC doing business as: Ashley Regional Medical Center, Ashley Regional Medical Group, Case No. 230800136 was removed from the Eight District Court for Uintah County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 12, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00729-HCN to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury Medical Malpractice. Ashley Regional -- https://www.ashleyregional.com/ -- is a Joint Commission Accredited 39-bed hospital located in the heart of Dinosaur Land in Vernal, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL PC 10 Exchange Pl., Ste. 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@mohtrial.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Sq., Ste. 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com The Defendant is represented by: Chad R. Derum, Esq. MANNING CURTIS BRADSHAW & BEDNAR PLLC 201 S MAIN ST STE 750 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 363-5678 Email: cderum@mc2b.com BAKKT HOLDINGS: $3MM Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 27 ------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SUZANNE POIRIER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BAKKT HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a VPC IMPACT ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, JOHN MARTIN, OLIBIA STAMATOGLOU, GORDON WATSON, KAI SCHMITZ, and KURT SUMMERS, Defendants. Case No. 1:22-cv-02283-EK-PK SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND (III) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED COMMON STOCK OF BAKKT HOLDINGS, INC. ("BAKKT") OR VPC IMPACT ACQUISITION HOLDINGS ("VIH"), OR WARRANTS TO PURCHASE BAKKT OR VIH COMMON STOCK (TOGETHER, "BAKKT SECURITIES") FROM MARCH 31, 2021 THROUGH NOVEMBER 19, 2021, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action"), a Settlement has been proposed for $3,000,000.00 in cash. A hearing will be held on February 27, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Eric Komitee, at the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or remotely per details that will be made publicly available on the Settlement website (www.BakktSecuritiesSettlement.com), for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") should be entered dismissing the Action against all Defendants with prejudice; (3) a Settlement Class of all persons, other than Defendants and other excluded persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired Bakkt Securities during the Class Period (the "Settlement Class"), should be finally certified for purposes of the Settlement only; (4) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5) the application of Co-Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, should be approved and, if so, in what amount; and (6) to award Plaintiffs out of the Settlement Fund pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in what amount. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received a detailed Notice of (i) Proposed Settlement, (ii) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses, and (iii) Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release ("Claim Form"), you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: Bakkt Securities Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173027, Milwaukee, WI, 53217, 1-877-390-3468, info@BakktSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation, Notice, and Claim Form at www.BakktSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form by mail postmarked no later than January 9, 2024, or submit it online by that date. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein). To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must mail a written request for exclusion so that it is received by February 6, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Claim Form. If you submit a written request for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court no later than February 6, 2024. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact Co-Lead Counsel at the following address(es) or telephone numbers: Pomerantz LLP Jeremy Lieberman 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 jalieberman@pomlaw.com Levi & Korsinsky LLP Adam M. Apton 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 aapton@zlk.com DATED: September 21, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BAYER HEALTHCARE: Class Action Over Recalled Products Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Raphael, Esq., Julia Carbonetti, Esq., and Kaylah Alexander, Esq., writing for Crowell, reports that Bayer Healthcare LLC (Bayer) is the latest in a long line of companies to be hit with a consumer class action lawsuit over recalled personal care products containing benzene -- a carcinogen found in a variety of consumer products, including most notoriously, aerosol deodorant, sunscreen, and dry shampoo. Roughly two years ago, on October 1, 2021, Bayer voluntarily recalled Lotrimin and Tinactin, two over-the-counter antifungal spray products used to treat various skin infections, after it discovered the presence of benzene. On September 14, 2023, eleven consumers filed Stewart et al. v. Aeropres Corp., et al, a putative nationwide class action against several defendants, including Bayer, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and assert seventeen causes of action for breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of certain consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs—purchasers of Lotrimin and/or Tinactin who reside in states around the country—do not allege physical injury from benzene exposure. Instead, they seek to recover only economic harm based on the allegation that they (1) overpaid for the recalled products, (2) would not have purchased those products if they knew of the benzene levels, and (3) were forced to purchase replacements. Bayer's co-defendants include Aeropres Corporation, which manufactures Propellant A-31 (the alleged source of benzene contamination) and Beiersdorf Manufacturing, LLC and Beiersdorf, Inc., which manufacture the products themselves. Plaintiffs' allegations focus on a six-week period between August and October of 2021. More specifically, they claim that: -- in mid-August 2021, Aeropres notified Beiersdorf of benzene-contaminated Propellant A-31, and Beiersdorf, in turn, notified Bayer, -- in September 2021, Beiersdorf received the results of testing that confirmed benzene contamination; and -- Bayer continued to sell benzene-contaminated products until October 2121 when it announced a recall, even though it continued to maintain that the levels detected would not cause adverse health consequences. This is not the first consumer-facing class action over Bayer's Lotrimin and Tinactin products. Several of the same plaintiffs previously filed Huertes et al. v. Bayer U.S., LLC, a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In May 23, 2023 the court dismissed that case, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a cognizable injury sufficient for standing under Article III. According to the court, plaintiffs' conclusory assertion that the products were worth "less" than they "bargained for" was speculative, and complaint also lacked critical information such as when the products were purchased, how they were used, when and how each plaintiff learned of the potential contamination, and their response. The Huertes decision is currently pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Unlike Huertes, the plaintiffs in Stewart, assert claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation, name several other companies in the supply chain as defendants, and include more detailed allegations about what each of the defendants supposedly knew and when. There are also several new plaintiff-specific allegations, but information about how each plaintiff allegedly used the products, learned of the potential contamination, or responded to that information -- information critical to the court's motion to dismiss ruling in Huertes -- is still missing. On December 16, 2023, Bayer filed a Motion to Dismiss in Stewart, urging the court to apply the first-filed rule in light of Huertes, and dismiss the case (or alternatively transfer it to the District of New Jersey). [GN] BELIMED INC: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations ---------------------------------------------------------- Javier Garcia, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. BELIMED INC., a Florida Stock Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV24911 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 12, 2023), is brought pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 as a result of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff proper compensations. The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest and meal periods in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations Title 8; failed to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations; failed to pay all wages earned on time in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay all wages earned 5 upon discharge or resignation in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse necessary, business related expenses in violation of Labor Code; failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation of Labor Code; employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Field Service Technician on or about September 9, 2015 and received a final paycheck from the Defendants on or about February 22, 2022. BELIMED INC. is a Florida Stock Corporation, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Melissa Robinson, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com melissa@hbklawyers.com BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Class Suit ------------------------------------------- Beyond Meat, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated consumer class action regarding its protein claims in its products. The initial case was captioned "Garcia v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00297 (September 9, 2022, S.D. Iowa). Said putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the company's products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states' laws. Specifically, it alleges one or more of the following theories of liability: (1) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product, (2) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product and (3) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are "all-natural," "organic," or contain no "synthetic" ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. Plaintiff seeks to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes' damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. On November 14, 2022, the company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings. On March 3, 2023, the court held the initial status conference. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class counsel and set a briefing schedule on the company's anticipated motion to dismiss. On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company's motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 7, 2023. The company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on July 21, 2023. A telephonic conference was set for October 17, 2023 for a ruling on the motion to dismiss. Beyond Meat, Inc. is a plant-based meat company offering a portfolio of plant-based meats. BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Class Suit Over Labeling -------------------------------------------------------- Beyond Meat, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated consumer class action regarding its protein claims in its products. The initial case was captioned "Borovoy v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06302 (September 30, 2022, N.D. Ill.). This was removed on November 10, 2022. Said putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the company's products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states' laws. Specifically, it alleges one or more of the following theories of liability: (1) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product, (2) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product and (3) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are "all-natural," "organic," or contain no "synthetic" ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. Plaintiff seeks to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes' damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. On November 14, 2022, the company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings. On March 3, 2023, the court held the initial status conference. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class counsel and set a briefing schedule on the company's anticipated motion to dismiss. On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company's motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 7, 2023. The company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on July 21, 2023. A telephonic conference was set for October 17, 2023 for a ruling on the motion to dismiss. Beyond Meat, Inc. is a plant-based meat company offering a portfolio of plant-based meats. BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------- Beyond Meat, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated consumer class action regarding its protein claims in its products. The initial case was captioned "Roberts v. Beyond Meat, Inc.," No. 1:22-cv-02861 (May 31, 2022, N.D. Ill.) Said putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the company's products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states' laws. Specifically, it alleges one or more of the following theories of liability: (1) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product, (2) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product and (3) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are "all-natural," "organic," or contain no "synthetic" ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. Plaintiff seeks to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes' damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. On November 14, 2022, the company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings. On March 3, 2023, the court held the initial status conference. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class counsel and set a briefing schedule on the company's anticipated motion to dismiss. On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company's motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 7, 2023. The Company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on July 21, 2023. A telephonic conference was set for October 17, 2023 for a ruling on the motion to dismiss. Beyond Meat, Inc. is a plant-based meat company offering a portfolio of plant-based meats. BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit Over Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- Beyond Meat, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated consumer class action regarding its protein claims in its products. Initial case was captioned "Zakinov v Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00144 (January 13, 2023, S.D. Tex.) Said putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in various federal and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of certain of the company's products is false and/or misleading under federal and/or various states' laws. Specifically, it alleges one or more of the following theories of liability: (1) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is provided by each serving of the product, (2) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the product and (3) that the Company has represented that the challenged products are "all-natural," "organic," or contain no "synthetic" ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose, an allegedly synthetic ingredient. Plaintiff seeks to represent classes of nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of the putative classes' damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, among other relief. On November 14, 2022, the company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all pending class actions. No party opposed the motion, and the panel held oral argument on the motion on January 26, 2023. The panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial proceedings. On March 3, 2023, the court held the initial status conference. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class counsel and set a briefing schedule on the company's anticipated motion to dismiss. On May 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company's motion to dismiss was filed on June 5, 2023, and plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition on July 7, 2023. The company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on July 21, 2023. A telephonic conference was set for October 17, 2023 for a ruling on the motion to dismiss. Beyond Meat, Inc. is a plant-based meat company offering a portfolio of plant-based meats. BNY MELLON: Bernard Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 3rd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BERNARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled John Bernard, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BNY Mellon, NA, Defendant, Case No. 2-18-cv-00783, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was initiated in the Court on June 15, 2018, by Plaintiffs John Bernard and William Bernard, who are the beneficiaries of the Van Valzah trust, against BNY Mellon, NA, trustee of the Van Valzah trust. In their second amended complaint ("SAC"), the Plaintiffs assert a cause of action against BNY Mellon for breach of fiduciary and statutory duties as trustee. On April 5, 2021, BNY Mellon moved for summary judgment and filed a brief in support thereof and concise statement of material facts ("CSF"), against the Plaintiffs on four bases: (1) the Plaintiffs have suffered no damages; (2) the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations; (3) the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue certain claims; and (4) Plaintiff Pamela Martin signed a release for one of the trusts. On same day, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On Sept. 22, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification through an Order entered by Judge Robert J. Colville. Moreover, the Court denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to damages. The appellate case is captioned John Bernard, et al. v. BNY Mellon, Case No. 23-8044, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 6, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOHN BERNARD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael A. Comber, Esq. Devin M. Misour, Esq. COMBER MILLER 436 7th Avenue 300 Koppers Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 894-1380 - and - Kathryn C. Ellsworth, Esq. GRAIS & ELLSWORTH 950 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 755-0100 - and - David J. Grais, Esq. GRAIS & ELLSWORTH 667 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10065 Telephone: (212) 755-3550 Defendant-Respondent BNY MELLON, N.A. is represented by: Nellie E. Hestin, Esq. Alexander Madrid, Esq. K. Issac deVyver, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 667-7909 (412) 667-7913 (412) 667-7988 BROKER SOLUTIONS: Human Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Broker Solutions, Inc. d/b/a New America Funding, Telemarketers John/Jane "Doe" 1-7, Case No. 23SL-CC03724 was removed from the St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Oct. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01271 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Broker Solutions, Inc. doing business as New American Funding -- https://www.newamericanfunding.com/ -- is a direct mortgage lender offering an array of mortgage loan options including purchase, refinance, and first time home buyer loans.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Richard B. Korn, Esq. Bart C. Sullivan, Esq. FOX SMITH LLC One S. Memorial Drive, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 588-7000 Fax: (314) 588-1965 Email: rkorn@foxsmithlaw.com bsullivan@foxsmithlaw.com BSH HOME: Says Emissions Class Suit Meritless, Barred ----------------------------------------------------- Julie Steinberg at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that a proposed consumer class action alleging Thermador-brand gas stoves emit harmful air pollutants is meritless and "in search of an injury and viable claim for relief," maker BSH Home Appliances Corp. says. Lead plaintiffs Robert Hedrick and Nicholas Kalergis alleged the company failed to disclose health risks linked to exposure to harmful emissions from the ovens. But the plaintiffs -- respectively California and Illinois residents -- lack standing to sue because they've suffered no injury, BSH told the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.[GN] C & N MANUFACTURING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C & N Manufacturing, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. C & N Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08884 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. C & N Manufacturing -- https://cnmfginc.com/ -- designs and manufactures CNC machines.[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 CADENCE BANK: Marsh Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cadence Bank. The case is styled as Cris Marsh, Taylor Marsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cadence Bank, Case No. 1:23-cv-00136-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss., Oct. 12, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cadence Bank -- https://cadencebank.com/ -- is a commercial bank with dual headquarters in Tupelo, Mississippi and Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. McDuff, Esq. 767 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Phone: (601) 969-0802 Email: rbm@mcdufflaw.com CALIFORNIA DAIRIES: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Luis J. Ferrer Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. VCU301419 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01458-EPG. The Complaint alleges causes of action for Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for Daily Overtime Worked in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Wages for Accrued Paid Sick Days at the Regular Rate of Pay in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of Employment in Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: S. Brett Sutton, Esq. Jared Hague, Esq. Jonathan W. Black, Esq. SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C. 5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203 Fresno, CA 93704 Phone: (559) 325-0500 Facsimile: (559) 981-1217 CANADA: MLA Sturko Shows Support for Female Police Officers' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Urquhart, writing for Global News, reports that one of B.C.'s most high-profile politicians is talking about her own personal trauma as she throws her support behind six female police officers who recently filed a proposed class action lawsuit. Surrey South BC United MLA Elenore Sturko, who served as an RCMP officer for 13 years, says she also faced harassment during her time as a police officer. Sturko also revealed, for the first time publicly, that she was among the women who received a settlement in the Merlo-Davidson class action lawsuit, which resulted in more than $100 million dollars being awarded to female RCMP officers. "The day the cheque came to me in the mail I was devastated, because you always think that will be something that makes you feel better, but it doesn't," she told Global News. "You have a lot of healing to do, a lot of trust that you have to rebuild in your organization when things like this happen." Numerous sexual harassment claims were made by six women, as they launched their class action suit against B.C.'s 13 cities with municipal police forces. The suit also names the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and B.C.'s solicitor general and public safety minister. "I think I can speak for all of us, and we've all been in very dark places, and I consider myself lucky to have been able to leave," plaintiff Helen Irvine, a former Delta Police officer, told Global News in an interview. Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth said his staff members are reviewing the lawsuit and promised changes to the Police Act to better deal with harassment. "The idea of a separate office or independent officer to take harassment issues to or cases, I think has some merit, and I'm prepared to look at that," he said. Sturko also believes an outside agency might be needed. "There's a lot of stigma attached to coming forward to say that something happened, and standing up to either bullying, sexual harassment, sexual assaults for some people," she said. "It's a very lonely time." [GN] CAPSTONE GREEN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Capstone Green Energy Corp. ("Capstone" or the "Company") (OTC: CGRNQ). The lawsuit alleges Capstone made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material adverse information regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including: (1) that the Company had engaged in "bill and hold transactions" with customers; (2) that these transactions were not reported pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"); and (3) that, "as a result of apparent errors primarily related to revenue recognition associated with bill and hold transactions" the Company lacked a reasonable basis to report certain financial results and was reasonably likely to restate its financial statements. If you bought Capstone shares between June 14, 2021 and September 22, 2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at https://holzerlaw.com/case/capstone/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is December 12, 2023. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] CAROL A. MICI: Santiago Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carol A. Mici, et al. The case is styled as William Santiago, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Carol A. Mici, in official capacity as Commissioner of Corrections, Jeff B. Moreira, Amanda McCarthy, Kevin Anahory, Anthony G. Findley, Case No. 2385CV01119 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty., Oct. 10, 2023). The case type is stated as "Administrative Civil Actions." Carol Mici has been appointed the Commissioner of the Department of Correction in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CATHAY PACIFIC: Pilots Face Off on Individual Wage Deal Releases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Bennett at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. and pilots traded blows over whether a federal judge should invalidate releases included in the individual settlements signed by more than a third of the would-be members of a wage-and-hour class action. The pilots who filed the suit urged the US District Court for the Northern District of California to nix the releases without making the workers who settled repay any company money they had already received.[GN] CENTENE CORPORATION: Samuel Files Suit in D. Delaware ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centene Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Harry Samuel, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Centene Corporation, Centurion of Delaware LLC, VitalCore Health Strategies, Acting Commissioner Terra Taylor, Former Commissioner Claire M. DeMatteis, Former Commissioner Monroe B. Hudson, Jr., Bureu Chief Michael Records, Medical Director Dr. Awele Maduka-Ezeh, Case No. 1:23-cv-01134-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 11, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Centene Corporation -- http://www.centene.com/-- is a publicly traded managed care company based in St. Louis, Missouri, which is an intermediary for government-sponsored and privately insured healthcare programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dwayne Julian Bensing, Esq. ACLU-DE 100 W. 10th St., Suite 706 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (215) 200-5025 Email: dbensing@aclu-de.org CENTERSTATE BANK: OK Hearing for Settlement Set for Nov. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- Jack Birle at washingtonexaminer.com reports that there are four days remaining for customers of CenterState Bank to file an exclusion or objection from a $2.65 million class-action settlement with the financial institution. The bank was accused of charging illegal overdraft fees to customers, which prompted the settlement with the bank, now called SouthState Bank. The financial institution has not admitted to any wrongdoing that was alleged but agreed to the settlement to resolve the lawsuit. If a customer wants to object or exclude themselves from this settlement, they must filed. UNITED AIRLINES TRIES TO SPEED UP BOARDING PROCESS WITH NEW SYSTEM Those who qualify for the settlement will automatically get a prorated share of the net settlement, determined by how much they were charged in illegal fees, and customers can receive either a cash payment, account credit, or forgiveness of uncollected fees. Individuals affected by the settlement must have had a checking account with the bank and have been charged certain types of overdraft fees on debit transactions from April 6, 2015, to May 31, 2020. Customers who were charged fees for insufficient funds or overdraft on automated clearing house debits or checks between Aug. 18, 2015, and Aug. 21, 2020, also qualify for the class-action settlement. The hard filing deadline for exclusion or objection to the settlement is Oct. 23, with an approval hearing for the settlement scheduled for Nov. 30. [GN] CHICK-FIL-A INC: OKs to $4.4M Settlement Over Delivery Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Dreier at Cox Media Group National Content Desk reports that delivery can be more expensive than running to your favorite restaurant to pick up a meal, but Chick-fil-A was the subject of a class action suit that said that its delivery was free or low-cost but raised the prices of the items being ordered. The restaurant chain has settled the suit for $4.4 million, with some customers able to get their cut of the money. The complaint said, "On delivery orders only, Chick-fil-A secretly markets up food prices for delivery orders by a hefty 25-30%. In other words, the identical order of a 30-count chicken nuggets costs approximately $5-6 more when ordered for delivery than when ordered via the same mobile app for pickup, or when ordered in-store." The complaint calls the pricing and promise of free or low-cost delivery deceptive because of the food markups. Originally, according to the filing, Chick-fil-A had charged $4.99 for delivery but kept prices of the food the same as it is when either picked up or ordered in person. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, the company lowered the delivery fee, but increased prices. KTLA and AL.com reported that Chick-fil-A had settled the class action weeks after it was filed. Citing Top Class Actions, the news outlets said that the restaurant chain did not admit to guilt. AL.com reported that the settlement will be comprised of $1.45 million in cash and $2.95 million in gift cards. Chick-fil-A also has to put a disclosure on its sites that says that prices may be higher for delivery. Customers who may get a refund will be emailed from the settlement administrator. Each should get a $29.95 payment or gift card, but the amount may be lower, depending on how many people are included in the settlement. The company's website will also have a notice where people can register for their portion of the settlement. Chick-fil-A isn't the only company accused of having higher prices for food that's delivered. Insider looked at Chipotle and McDonald's, and when food's ordered through delivery apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats, the cost of the food was 20% to 38% higher than in the restaurants. The chains, according to Insider, set the prices, not the apps. "Marked-up menu prices are one of the top customer complaints DoorDash receives," DoorDash told the media outlet. "This is one reason -- among many -- why DoorDash encourages restaurant partners to maintain delivery menu prices that more closely reflect in-store menu prices." [GN] COKER UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coker University. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Coker University, Case No. 1:23-cv-08903 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Coker University -- https://www.coker.edu/ -- is a private university in Hartsville, South Carolina.[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 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal COSTCO WHOLESALE: Castillo et al. Sue Over Unlawful Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS CASTILLO, MARK KNOWLES, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, AND NICHOLAS JAMES THROLSON, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant, arises out of Costco's unlawful data-sharing practices of using online third-party tracking technologies, such as Meta Platforms, Inc.'s Pixel Code to surreptitiously disclose millions of Americans’ private and protected communications, including their highly personal health information, to third parties, all without consumers' knowledge or consent. The Plaintiffs allege that Costco engages in the unauthorized disclosure of its Pharmacy patients' highly sensitive Personal Health Information and Personally Identifiable Information to third parties by purposely embedding and deploying Pixel on Costco's Website, www.costco.com. As such, Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals, to recover for harms suffered and assert the following claims: Violations of Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Violations of the Washington Privacy Act; Violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act; Violations of the Washington Uniform Health Care Information Act; Invasion of Privacy; Breach of Implied Contract; Conversion; and Unjust Enrichment. Headquartered in Issaquah, WA, Costco Wholesale Corporation is a multinational retailer that operates a membership-only warehouse club that sells food, automotive, supplies, toys, hardware, sporting goods, jewelry, electronics, apparel, health, and beauty aids, as well as other goods. Costco also offers pharmaceutical services through the Costco Pharmacy and the Pharmacy webpage. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com DERMTECH INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against DermTech, Inc. ("DermTech" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DMTK). The lawsuit alleges DermTech made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material adverse information regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including: (1) that the Company experienced challenges with collections from commercial payors; (2) that, as a result, there was a lower average selling price for DermTech's melanoma test; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenue growth would be adversely impacted. If you bought DermTech shares between May 3, 2022 and November 3, 2022, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at https://holzerlaw.com/case/dermtech/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is December 15, 2023. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] DERRICK TODD: 120 Ex-Patients Join Sexual Assault Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Fortier and Eli Rosenberg, writing for NBC Boston, report that at least 120 former patients have joined a class action lawsuit against a Boston-based physician accused of performing pelvic, breast and rectal exams on patients that were not medically necessary. The suit from Lubin & Meyer is one of several against Dr. Derrick Todd. In total, more than 125 former patients have obtained legal representation. Todd, who was a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, has agreed not to practice medicine while a state board investigates. Marianne DiTrani, a woman who said she's a survivor of sexual assault by Todd, spoke at a news conference after filing suit against him in Suffolk Superior Court. She said she moved to Massachusetts for the specialized treatment Todd was supposed to provide for her rare autoimmune conditions, but he performed sexualized breast and gynecological exams and talked inappropriately about sex. She saw him in person from November to January, and then remotely after that until he allegedly pressured her to return to Massachusetts for more visits over the summer. "When you trust someone to help you, you see them and you're very vulnerable, and when they violate that trust, and they hurt you instead of heal you, it can be very frightening and not easy to process," DiTrani said at the news conference. A lawyer for Todd has previously told NBC10 Boston that he "has not seen the allegations in any lawsuit filed against him," and that, "To the extent that anyone is bringing claims against him, Dr. Todd believes that he has done nothing wrong and will defend against such claims vigorously." The lawyer also noted that Todd is cooperating with the Board of Registration in Medicine. An initial investigation by Brigham and Women's Hospital was reportedly prompted by complaints from two other doctors after the hospital heard from patients concerned about the examinations they received. Todd was fired over the summer after an investigation. Dr. Charles Morris, chief medical officer at Brigham and Women's Hospital, urged any former patient who has not spoken with the hospital to call 617-732-7081. "We deeply regret the harm Dr. Todd's actions has caused our patients and their families. We take our duty to care for our patients and keep them safe extremely seriously. We have, and always will, act decisively on any allegations of misconduct, as we did in this case," Morris said Tuesday, Oct. 17, in a statement to NBC10 Boston. "We began an internal investigation immediately after we received two anonymous complaints about Dr. Todd. He was then placed on administrative leave once we learned more and, upon completion of that initial investigation, we made a decision to terminate him. We notified the Department of Public Health and the Board of Registration in Medicine and then contacted law enforcement." Charles River Medical Associates, where Todd also practiced, said it was reaching out to patients to see if they had any concerns. "At no time, up until and including his last day at our Framingham office on July 26th of this year, did we receive, nor were we made aware of, any complaints from patients, staff, or any other physicians about inappropriate conduct by Dr. Todd," that facility said in a statement Tuesday, Oct. 17, to NBC10 Boston. "We are disappointed and saddened by these disturbing allegations and recognize the courage it takes for these patients to come forward." [GN] DLOCAL LIMITED: Francis Sues Over Misleading Business Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GAVIN FRANCIS, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, DLOCAL LIMITED, SEBASTIAN KANOVICH, and DIEGO CABRERA CANAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07501 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2023) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, against the Company and certain of its top officials. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired DLocal securities between May 2, 2022 and May 25, 2023, both dates inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that, among other things, Dlocal is engaged in certain improper conduct and transfers abroad in violation of Argentine laws and/or regulations, including, inter alia, foreign exchange regulations, says the suit. Headquartered in in Montevideo, Uruguay, the DLocal operates a payment processing platform for merchants worldwide and, as part of its operations, engages in certain foreign exchange transactions. The Company's Class A common shares trade in an efficient market on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "DLO". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com EISENHOWER MEDICAL: Collects Data Without Consent, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ B.K. and N.Z., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02092 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2023) alleges violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant never disclosed to the Plaintiffs or Class Members that it shared their sensitive and confidential communications, data, and Private Information with Facebook and other unauthorized third parties. Without the Plaintiff's and the Class Member's authorization or informed consent, the Defendant installed Facebook's Meta Pixel ("Meta Pixel" or "Pixel") and other third-party tracking technology, in its Web Properties in order to intercept and send Private Information to third parties such as Facebook and/or Google LLC. The Defendant has disregarded the privacy rights of millions of visitors to and users of its websites ("Users" or "Class Members") by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Users' personally identifiable information and protected health information was safeguarded, says the suit. Instead, Defendant allegedly allowed unauthorized third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Facebook ("Facebook") to intercept the Users' clicks, communications on, and visits of Defendant's websites, including https://www.eisenhowerhealth.org/ (the "Site") and https://www.eisenhowerhealth.org/mychart (the "Portal" and collectively with the site, the "Web Properties"). EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER is a not-for-profit hospital based in Rancho Mirage, California, serving the Coachella Valley region of Southeastern California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. Valter Malkhasyan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Tel: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com vmalkhasyan@clarksonlawfirm.com ELECTROCORE INC: Shareholder Suit Over IPO Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- electroCore, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on July 13, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a second amended complaint that sought to represent a class of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock in the IPO or whose purchases are traceable to the IPO, or who purchased common stock between the IPO and September 25, 2019. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO, and certain post-IPO disclosures filed with the SEC. The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The Priewe case was voluntarily dismissed on February 19, 2020. On September 26, 2019, purported stockholders of the company served a putative class action lawsuit in said court captioned "Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al.," Case 3:19-cv-18400. In addition to the company, the defendants include present and past directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for the IPO. On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in addition to the prior claims, the amended complaint added an additional director defendant and two investors as defendants and adds a claim against the company and the underwriters for violating Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. On September 15, 2020, the company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On November 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The company and the other defendants filed reply papers in support of the motion on December 7, 2020. Argument of the motion to dismiss occurred on June 18, 2021. On August 13, 2021, the court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to re-plead. On October 4, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss, and briefing on the motion was complete on January 7, 2022. On July 13, 2023, the court dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to re-plead. electroCore, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a commercial stage bioelectronic medicine and wellness company dedicated to improving health through its non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation technology platform. The company's focus is the commercialization of medical devices for the management and treatment of certain medical conditions and consumer product offerings. EMBARK TECHNOLOGIES: $2.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 16 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California-San Francisco Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II and Embark Technology, Inc. common stock (NYSE: NGAB and NASDAQ: EMBK): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT To: All persons (i) who purchased or otherwise acquired Embark Technologies, Inc. ("Embark" or the "Company") common stock pursuant or traceable to the July 2, 2021 registration statement, including all amendments thereto, issued in connection with the November 2021 business combination between Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II ("Northern Genesis") and Embark Trucks Inc. (the "November 2021 Business Combination") and were damaged; and/or (ii) beneficially owned and/or held Northern Genesis common stock as of October 6, 2021, the record date, and were eligible to vote at Northern Genesis' November 9, 2021 special meeting with respect to the November 2021 Business Combination, and were damaged. A hearing will be held on February 8, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley via Zoom video to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement for $2.5 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair and reasonable; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to $835,000 (33.4% of the Settlement) and reimbursement of expenses of up to $140,000 and a payment of no more than $2,500 to each of the two Class Representatives for their reasonable costs and expenses should be approved; and (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants, as set forth in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation") filed with the Court. To join the public hearing, visit the Court's website at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/corley-jacqueline-scott-jsc/ and follow the instructions. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim") you may obtain them at www.strategicclaims.net/embark/ or by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Embark Securities Litigation, Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, Tel: (866) 274-4004, Fax (610) 565-7985. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Embark common stock pursuant or traceable to the July 2, 2021 registration statement, including all amendments thereto, issued in connection with the November 2021 Business Combination and were damaged, your rights may be affected by this Settlement. If you beneficially owned and/or held Northern Genesis common stock as of October 6, 2021, the record date, and were eligible to vote at Northern Genesis' November 9, 2021 special meeting with respect to the November 2021 Business Combination, and were damaged, your rights may be affected by this Settlement. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, whether or not you make a claim, unless you request exclusion from the Settlement Class, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than December 22, 2023. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than December 22, 2023 to the Settlement Administrator or online at www.strategicclaims.net/embark/ by 11:59 p.m. EST on December 22, 2023 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and/or an award of reasonable costs and expenses for the two Class Representatives must be made in writing and provided to the Court, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than December 22, 2023. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim, may be made to Class Counsel at the address below. Brenda Szydlo POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Fl. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Dated: September 26, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EMPOWER FINANCE: Faces Mcfadden Suit Over Spam Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Shamekia Mcfadden, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people, Plaintiff v. Empower Finance, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01914 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 3, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Empower Finance violated the law by initiating telephone solicitations to the residential cellular telephones of Plaintiff Mcfadden and members of the National Do Not Call Registry Class while their phone numbers were on the National DNCR. The Defendant also failed to disclose the name of the individual caller and the full name of Empower Finance on the text messages to Plaintiff Mcfadden and members of the Class. Plaintiff Mcfadden asserts that her home, phone, and privacy have been invaded by Empower Finance's non-emergency text messages. She brings this action for herself and for other similarly situated people to enjoin these abusive practices and for damages. Empower Finance, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers savings, mobile banking, and debit card services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Kauffman, Esq. LAWHQ, P.C. 299 S. Main St. #1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (385) 285-1090 E-mail: john.kauffman@lawhq.com EMS MANAGEMENT: Murray Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jasmine Murray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EMS Management & Consultants, Inc., Case No. 23CVS4223 was removed from the Forsyth County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Oct. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00860-TDS-JLW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. EMS|MC -- https://emsmc.com/ -- is a third-party billing agency for EMS Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Robert Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (910) 772-9960 Fax: (910) 772-9062 Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Donavan J. Hylarides, Esq. WYATT EARLY HARRIS WHEELER, LLP 1912 Eastchester Drive, Suite 400 High Point, NC 27265 Phone: (336) 819-6009 Fax: (336) 819-6069 Email: dhylarides@wehwlaw.com EMS MANAGEMENT: Robinson Suit Removed to D. Sorth Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edith Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMS Management & Consultants, Inc., Case No. 2023-CP-21-02088 was removed from the Florence County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Sorth Carolina on Oct. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-05073-JD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. EMS|MC -- https://emsmc.com/ -- is a third-party billing agency for EMS Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Donavan J. Hylarides, Esq. WYATT EARLY HARRIS WHEELER, LLP 1912 Eastchester Drive, Suite 400 High Point, NC 27265 Phone: (336) 819-6009 Fax: (336) 819-6069 Email: dhylarides@wehwlaw.com ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Supreme Ct. Declines to Hear ERISA Suit Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Mulholland at planadviser.com reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear two cases concerning the enforceability of mandatory arbitration and class action waivers in plan documents. The decision effectively denies appeals of decisions made by judges in the 3rd and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal, which ruled that mandatory arbitration and class action waiver clauses in plan documents are unenforceable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the 10th Circuit decision on October 10 and the 3rd Circuit decision on October 16. Both cases alleged that private equity in employee stock ownership plans was improperly valued at the expense of the participants. In Robert Harrison v. Envision Management Holdings, the 10th Circuit ruled for Harrison, while in Marlow Henry v. Wilmington Trust, the 3rd Circuit ruled for Henry. In both circuit court outcomes, the defendants' moves to force individual arbitration and prevent a class action remedy were denied. 10th Circuit Complaint Harrison initially brought his complaint in January 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff alleged that his employer, Envision, a radiology company, violated its fiduciary duties in the management of an ESOP. Specifically, Harrison alleged that Envision owners sold 100% of its private stock to the ESOP for approximately $160 million, $150 million of which the ESOP borrowed, since it had insufficient funds. Of that loan, $100 million came from the owners themselves and $50 million came from Envision. The lawsuit alleges that contributions to the ESOP were first spent on paying interest on those loans, set at 12%, and that two separate prices were used to value the private stock of Envision, both of which were overpriced. Envision argued that the plaintiff had signed an arbitration clause that required him to only claim individual damages, not plan-wide damages. The District Court refused to enforce that agreement. Envision then appealed to the 10th Circuit. The 10th Circuit ruled that mandatory individual arbitration is invalid "because it disallows plan-wide relief," a statutory right under ERISA. The court explained that the effective vindication exemption means that arbitration clauses cannot remove the right to pursue statutory remedies, which include plan-wide relief. The defendants argued that the Department of Labor can still pursue enforcement action on behalf of the plan and that individual participants can seek individual relief through arbitration. The court ruled that ERISA expressly authorizes plan-wide relief in cases brought by participants, and mandatory individual arbitration cannot remove that right: "Because we agree with the district court that the remedies limitation contained in Section 21.1(b) prevents Harrison from effectively vindicating his statutory remedies, that means that the entire Arbitration Procedure outlined in Section 21 of the Plan is 'rendered null and void in all respects.'" 3rd Circuit Complaint Henry similarly alleged the private stock of BSC Ventures was inflated and therefore hurt the ESOP's participants, filing the initial complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit ruled that plan-wide relief -- a remedy that addresses all affected members of the plan -- is protected by ERISA. An individual cannot waive a statutory remedy for a plan, because it is not the individual's right to waive, but the plan's right. This ruling was also effectively upheld when the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. Mark Boyko, an ERISA attorney and partner in Bailey Glasser LLC, says that arbitration clauses as such are not unlawful. It is when they are paired with a class action waiver that they become unenforceable, because then a plaintiff cannot pursue the plan-wide relief protected by ERISA. Boyko says that courts have ruled that "the plan can agree to arbitration, but the plan can't agree and limit the award to one individual" through a class waiver. "You can waive your procedural right to go to court," says Boyko, "but not your statutory right to plan-wide remedies," whether awarded by a court or by an arbitrator. The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 requires the DOL to issue regulations spelling out how private assets should be appraised for the purpose of creating ESOPs. A report published by Matrix Global Investors in September argued that a lack of regulatory uncertainty on ESOP valuation may be the greatest obstacle to their wider formation. [GN] ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Morgan Sues Over Eyewear Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Morgan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EssilorLuxottica S.A.; Luxottica Group S.p.A.; Essilor International SAS; EssilorLuxottica USA Inc.; Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp.; Essilor of America Holding Company, Inc.; Luxottica of America, Inc.; Essilor of America Inc.; EyeMed Vision Care, LLC; and Vision Source, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-03065 (D. Minn., Oct. 3, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act for injunctive relief and to recover treble damages and the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and the Class by virtue of Defendants' violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the complaint, EssilorLuxottica manufactures and distributes eyeglasses, sunglasses, and corrective lenses to retailers and sells them to consumers through its own retailers. Over the course of decades, EssilorLuxottica has consistently and repeatedly acquired major competitors to forestall any competition it might face. In some instances, it first weakened its competitors through underhanded and illegal means, such as by selling its own fake Oakley sunglasses to try to force Oakley to accept price concessions. The Defendants are, collectively, an international, vertically integrated, corporate conglomerate. Their collective market power has enabled them to engage in anticompetitive conduct, which has not escaped scrutiny from antitrust regulators. EssilorLuxottica sells those brands in its own retail channels, and it prevents any authorized third-party retailers from competing on price through the use of most favored nation and/or minimum resale price maintenance agreements. Consumers, including Plaintiff, who purchase eyeglasses or sunglasses almost invariably do so from Defendants, although the vast majority do not know it because Defendants hold their products out to the public as separate brands manufactured by separate companies and sold through separate channels of distribution, the suit asserts. EssilorLuxottica S.A. is a France-based ophthalmic company. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range of lenses, frames and sunglasses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Kristen G. Marttila, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com kgmarttila@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com FINCHEY CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acosta Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ GUSTAVO ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINCHEY CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23GDCV02154 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 12, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Acosta was employed by the Defendants as a staff. FINCHEY CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA operates as an automobile dealer. The Company specializes in the retail sale of new and used automobiles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Diana Zadykyan, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com diana@hbklawyers.com FLORIDA: Class Suit Over Transgender Medical Treatments Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- wmnf.org reports that a federal judge said a lawsuit challenging new Florida restrictions on treatments for transgender people will move forward as a class action. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a 15-page order that "certified" a class action in the lawsuit filed on behalf of transgender children and adults. The plaintiffs are challenging a new law (SB 254), championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, that banned doctors from providing treatments such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers to transgender children. The law also put restrictions on treatments for adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Attorneys for the state in August urged Hinkle to reject a request from the plaintiffs to certify the case as a class action. The state argued that class certification would be "entirely inappropriate," in part because of varying factors involving individual plaintiffs. But Hinkle rejected such arguments, saying the "case will turn almost entirely on common issues" with common answers. "The (state) defendants assert . . . . that providing class relief will require individual determinations of the circumstances and appropriate care of each individual," Hinkle wrote. "Not so. Commonality requires common questions with common answers and is not defeated just because a case also presents individual issues. Indeed, nearly all class actions potentially present individual questions about whether individuals qualify for whatever classwide relief may ultimately be granted." Hinkle's order approved a class for all transgender adults in Florida "who seek gender-affirming treatment with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgery." He also created a class for all transgender minors "who seek gender-affirming treatment with puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones and their parents." In addition, he created a sub-class because part of the law allowed some minors to continue receiving treatments if they had already started. [GN] FRANCESCA'S ACQUISITION: Faces Suit Over January 2023 Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that women's fashion retailer Francesca's faces a proposed class action in the wake of a January 2023 data breach in which cybercriminals accessed "a gold mine" of current and former employees' and customers' personal information. According to the 38-page case, Francesca's discovered around January 31 of this year that an unauthorized party had accessed files on its computer systems between January 12 and the end of the month. Per the suit, current and former employees' and customers' names, Social Security numbers and financial account information were compromised in the Francesca's data breach. "As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have experienced and/or are at a substantial and imminent risk of experiencing identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm," the complaint stresses. "This risk will remain for their respective lifetimes." Compounding matters, the lawsuit says, was Francesca's failure to notify data breach victims until nearly eight months after the company discovered the incident. The case contends that this "outrageous delay" effectively gave the data thieves a head start and hampered victims from being able to mitigate their damages. "This inexcusable delay in notification amplified the harm to plaintiffs and the Class," the suit scathes. Further, the case says Francesca's has offered no assurance that all personal data or copies of the data have been recovered or destroyed, or that it has appropriately bolstered its cybersecurity practices "to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future." The case alleges Francesca's was "on notice" that failing to take appropriate data security measures left the information in its care vulnerable to a cyberattack. The suit claims the sensitive data stolen in the Francesca's breach "has already been fraudulently misused." "Francesca's knew or should have known that its electronic records would be targeted by cybercriminals, yet it failed to take the necessary precautions to protect Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information from being compromised," the suit charges. As the case tells it, Francesca's response to the data breach has been "particularly paltry" since the retailer has offered victims only 12 to 24 months of credit monitoring, a "wholly inadequate" remedy given the circumstances. The lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who were impacted by the January 2023 Francesca's data breach, including anyone who was sent a notice about the incident by defendant Francesca's Acquisition, LLC. [GN] FRIDAY PLANS: Faces Nash Suit Over Prerecorded Messages ------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS NASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRIDAY PLANS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-14469 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2023) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant Friday Plans, Inc., in negligently and/or willfully using prerecorded messages to call Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, without his express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited prerecorded calls without the requisite express written consent to promote its goods and services. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant;s unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Friday Plans, Inc. is a fully-licensed online pharmacy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 422-7782 Facsimile: (813) 422–7783 E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com GAMESTOP CORP: Faces Class Action Over Free Shipping Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that GameStop Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit claiming that the company advertises free shipping on products but then charges customers, even when they reach free shipping minimum requirements, after payment information is entered. The charges are added after the purchase is nearly complete, not acknowledged and then added as shipping and handling, the GameStop class action says. "Adding further confusion and deception, if a consumer is savvy enough to discover that they have been charged 'Shipping & Handling' fees . . . GameStop further attempts to cover up its deception by claiming that these consumers were only charged for 'handling,' and not for 'shipping,' the GameStop free shipping class action claims. "By unfairly obscuring its shipping and handling charges, GameStop deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true fees online." GameStop should pay damages, restitution and discontinue deceptive shipping and handling charges, lawsuit says Plaintiff Ryan Page and the class are asking GameStop for damages, restitution and an injunction against GameStop continuing its process of charging for shipping and handling. Customers often pay for more purchases to reach a "free shipping" threshold and are then surprised, when they notice, to be charged for shipping and handling on products regardless of reaching that threshold, the GameStop class action claims. GameStop's actions and charges are unethical and against the American Marketing Association's statement on ethics, the GameStop free shipping class action claims. GameStop is also facing a 2022 class action lawsuit claiming it "covertly wiretaps" the communications of website visitors who use its chat feature, and then shares the transcripts with a third party. Have you attempted to purchase from the GameStop website and been charged more in shipping than expected? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Andrew J. Shamis of Shamis and Gentile P.A., along with Sophia Goren Gold, Jeff Kaliel and Amanda Rosenburg of KalielGold PLLC. The GameStop free shipping class action lawsuit is Page v. GameStop Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-01970, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Faces Consolidated Adtech Claims in UK's CAT -------------------------------------------------------- CDR reports that Google is facing a consolidated multi-billion pound claim in the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) over its alleged abuse of dominance in the advertising technology (adtech) market. The claim is brought by Ad Tech Collective Action, a special purpose vehicle formed by two former claimants, Charles Arthur and Claudio Pollack, who have joined forces to represent a class of UK publishers of websites and apps who claim to have suffered loss due to Google's conduct. The CAT has granted permission for the consolidation of Arthur's and Pollack's individual claims, which were filed separately in the CAT earlier this year. This is the first time that the CAT has allowed such a consolidation in the UK's competition collective proceedings regime. The CAT would otherwise have had to decide which one of the two claims was more suitable to be certified and proceed to trial. According to Ad Tech Collective Action, the consolidation of the claims has significant benefits for the proposed class. These include: combining the strengths of each individual claim to better serve the proposed class members and offer them the best chance for compensation; providing the proposed class with the benefit of the combined expertise and experience of both claimants' advisers; saving time and costs that would otherwise be spent on determining which claim was to proceed and instead focusing the efforts of the parties on bringing the case against Google. The consolidated claim will now proceed to a certification hearing on 29 January, when the CAT will decide whether to grant a collective proceedings order (CPO) that will allow the claim to go ahead as an opt-out collective action. This means that all UK publishers who meet the eligibility criteria will be automatically included in the claim unless they choose to opt out. The claim alleges that Google has abused its dominant position in the ad-tech market by imposing unfair terms and conditions on publishers, restricting their access to data and analytics, favouring its own services and platforms, and charging excessive fees. These practices, it is claimed, have reduced publishers' revenues from advertising and harmed competition and innovation in the adtech sector. Pollack said in a statement: "Google's abusive conduct in the adtech market is the subject of various regulatory and legal proceedings around the world, including in the UK, and is a well-known issue. In keeping with its conduct in those proceedings, Google has made clear that it intends to fight this claim with all of its might, and by consolidating Charles Arthur's and my individual claims we are able to ensure that the UK publishers are given the best chance possible for justice to be delivered. Ad Tech Collective Action looks forward to working closely with its advisers to do just that." Luke Streatfeild of Hausfeld & Co, Toby Starr of Humphries Kerstetter and Damien Geradin of Geradin Partners, who are leading the litigation on behalf of Ad Tech Collective Action, stated jointly: "The Competition Appeal Tribunal has set an important precedent for the UK collective proceedings regime and allowed the claims of Mr Arthur and Mr Pollack to be consolidated in order for the claim against Google by Ad Tech Collective Action LLP to proceed without any delay. Publishers continue to lose significant revenue from advertising as a result of Google's conduct and have done so for nearly a decade. This claim, which is made at no cost to publishers, is the best way for them to obtain proper compensation. We look forward to working with Ad Tech Collective Action to accomplish this and help put a stop to Google's anti-competitive conduct." Google's behaviour in the adtech market has come under scrutiny in various jurisdictions. For example, in June 2021, the French competition authority concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in online advertising services and imposed a fine of EUR 220 million on the company. In December 2020, a group of US states led by Texas filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, accusing it of running an illegal monopoly over online advertising. In March 2021, another group of US states led by Arizona filed a separate lawsuit against the company over its alleged manipulation of ad auctions. In June 2021, Germany's competition watchdog opened an investigation into Google's market power in relation to its data processing practices. Also in June this year, the European Commission sent a formal , accusing the company of abusing its dominant position in the digital advertising space and threatening that breaking up the company may be the only remedy if it is found guilty. The Ad Tech Collective Action claim is being funded by CF ADT, an entity owned by funds and/or accounts managed by affiliates of Fortress Investment Group, with the claimants represented by Robert O'Donoghue KC of Brick Court Chambers, Gerry Facenna KC, Julian Gregory and Alison Berridge of Monckton Chambers, and Greg Adey of One Essex Court, instructed by Hausfeld, Humphries Kerstetter and Geradin Partners. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of AI Data Scraping Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Savannah Fortis, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that Big Tech player Google is seeking to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit that claims it's violating the privacy and property rights of millions of internet users by scraping data to train its artificial intelligence (AI) models. Google filed the motion on Oct. 17 in a California District Court, saying it's necessary to use public data to train its AI chatbots, such as Bard. It argued the claims are based on the false premises that it is "stealing" the information that is publicly shared on the internet. Google said such a lawsuit would "take a sledgehammer not just to Google's services but to the very idea of generative AI." The suit was opened against Google in July by eight individuals claiming to represent "millions of class members," such as internet users and copyright holders. They claim their privacy and property rights were violated under a Google privacy policy change a week before the suit was filed that allows data scraping for AI training purposes. Google argued the complaint concerns "irrelevant conduct by third parties and doomsday predictions about AI." It said the complaint failed to address any core issues, particularly how the plaintiffs have been harmed by using their information. This case is one of many that have been brought against tech giants that are developing and training AI systems. On Sept. 20, Meta refuted claims of copyright infringement during the training of its AI. [GN] GRIECO HYUNDAI: RI Federal Court Rules Waivers Not Enforceable -------------------------------------------------------------- jdsupra.com reprots that earlier this month, in Elsie Metcalfe v. Grieco Hyundai, LLC, the Rhode Island Federal District Court invalidated a class action waiver in an agreement without an arbitration clause that was therefore not subject to the Federal Arbitration Act. In Metcalfe, Plaintiff Elsie Metcalfe leased a car from Defendant Grieco Hyundai, LLC, in May 2019. The lease agreement included an option to purchase the vehicle at a specific price at the end of the lease. When the Defendant raised the price, Ms. Metcalfe brought a class action for breach of contract and violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act, among other claims. The Defendant moved to dismiss based on a provision in the lease agreement that waived the lessor's right to bring or join a class action related to the lease. Class Action Waivers Held to Violate Rhode Island and Massachusetts Public Policy The District Court held the waiver violated Rhode Island public policy and was thus unenforceable. The Court relied on a provision of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act that conferred on consumers a right to bring class action claims, noting that statutes are declarations of public policy and agreements that attempt to limit statutorily granted rights thus violate public policy. The District Court's reasoning is similar to that of the First Circuit's in a 2020 case invalidating a class waiver provision in an employment contract not governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. As in Metcalfe, the First Circuit found the waiver unenforceable as a matter of Massachusetts public policy because the Massachusetts Wage Act, among other state statutes, granted plaintiffs the right to proceed as a class. The District Court also declined to dismiss the class action claim on other independent grounds, finding the original lease agreement was superseded by a later purchase agreement and installment contract that did not contain a similar class action waiver. The Metcalfe decision is a reminder to businesses that they should draft and regularly review their dispute resolution clauses in consumer contracts with experienced counsel in light of recent decisions on enforceability.[GN] HELIX ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Engineers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ Randi Love at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc. reached a confidential settlement with its subsea engineers who brought a class action alleging the company failed to pay them overtime. "A presumption of fairness should attach to the proposed settlement," the parties wrote in the joint motion to approve the settlement filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The parties agreed that the settlement's terms remain confidential, and the terms and amount were filed under seal, the motion said. Counsel for both parties didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] INMEDIATA HEALTH: Resolves Multi-State Data Breach Investigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jill McKeon at healthitsecurity.com reports that Puerto Rico-based healthcare clearinghouse Inmediata Health agreed to a $1.4 million settlement to resolve a multi-state data breach investigation backed by 33 state attorneys general. Inmediata previously reached a $1.13 settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit related to the same breach. In January 2019, HHS alerted Inmediata that some protected health information (PHI) maintained by the company was available online and had been indexed by search engines. The misconfigured web settings may have allowed internet users to freely view and download sensitive patient information. Despite learning of the breach in January, Inmediata did not notify the 1.5 million impacted consumers until three months later, in April 2019. What's more, some of the delayed notification letters were improperly addressed, and were lacking details and context about the breach that left consumers confused. "Inmediata maintained some of our most sensitive and private health information and they had an obligation to keep it secure. Their coding error left sensitive patient information exposed on public online searches for months, with no notification to impacted patients," said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong. "Their failures violated numerous state consumer protection laws, breach notification laws, and HIPAA requirements. Our multistate settlement forces Inmediata to pay a significant fine, and requires strong security practices going forward to ensure these types of inexcusable security lapses never occur again." In addition to the hefty fine, Inmediata will be required to implement a comprehensive information security program that includes code reviews and crawling controls and improve its overall data security and breach notification practices. Inmediata must also develop an incident response plan that includes specific provisions about consumer notification letters, as well as conduct annual third-party security assessments for the next five years. Each state involved in the investigation will receive varying amounts of the settlement fund. In addition, the class-action settlement resolved in 2022 may provide additional relief for breach victims. The class-action settlement fund covered administrative expenses, approved claims to class members, and the cost of Kroll's Web Watcher Services for enrolled class members. What sets the multi-state investigation apart is its addition of corrective actions to ensure that Inmediata takes actions to improve its security program and prevent breaches going forward. [GN] IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Appeal Dismissal Order Rebuffed ------------------------------------------------------------ Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that having your name in the caption of a securities class action doesn't mean you have standing to appeal if the case is dismissed, according to a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2021, Mark Habelt was the first shareholder to file a securities fraud class action against digital healthcare company iRhythm Technologies (IRTC.O), accusing the company in federal court in San Francisco of misleading investors with overly optimistic statements about U.S. regulatory proceedings to set a reimbursement rate for iRhythm's premier heart monitoring product. iRhythm's share price dropped sharply when the reimbursement rate was ultimately slashed from $311 to $115. Habelt did not ask to be appointed to lead the class action when institutional investors emerged in the case. But even after a Mississippi pension fund was designated lead plaintiff and filed amended complaints on behalf of the class, Habelt's name remained on the pleadings. The March 2022 opinion tossing the prospective class action -- for failing to identify an actionable misstatement and failing to allege fraudulent intent -- is, in fact, captioned Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. The Mississippi pension fund opted not to appeal the dismissal. Habelt stepped up. His lawyers from Block & Leviton teamed up with the Mississippi fund's lead counsel from Pomerantz to ask the 9th Circuit to revive the case. iRhythm and its counsel from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati made it clear from the outset of the appeal that the company would make an issue of Habelt's standing. Wilson Sonsini filed a motion to dismiss the appeal before the case was even assigned to a merits panel of judges, arguing that the Mississippi fund was the only named plaintiff in the amended complaint at the heart of the case. "That Habelt's name remains on the caption as an administrative matter is not enough," iRhythm's motion argued. "Habelt is not mentioned at all within the body of the complaint, nor did he litigate the dispute below." Habelt was not even bound by the judgment against the Mississippi fund, iRhythm said, because the shareholder class had not been certified before the fund's case was tossed. So Habelt, according to the company, had no constitutional right to appeal. Habelt's lawyers retorted that he was obviously a party to the case: He initiated the litigation on behalf of the shareholder class and never withdrew his appearance or took any other action to suggest he had no interest in prosecuting the case that bore his name. The 9th Circuit motions panel denied iRhythm's dismissal motion in December but said the company could renew its standing arguments before the merits panel. The company, which did not respond to my query, did just that in its main brief to the 9th Circuit. Habelt, in turn, argued in his reply brief that he was always a party in the case by virtue of filing the complaint that kicked off the litigation. "He was never 'unnamed' or 'absent,'" Habelt's lawyers said. And there's no precedent, they argued, to support iRhythm's contention that Habelt should have sought to intervene in the case in order to appeal its dismissal. Habelt, his lawyers said, "reasonably believed that he was already a party, and no authority requires him to move to intervene in his own case." The 9th Circuit held otherwise in a split Oct. 11 decision. Judges Carlos Bea and Holly Thomas said in Thomas's majority opinion that Habelt ceased to be a party when the Mississippi fund was named lead plaintiff and filed an amended complaint that made no mention of the investor who initiated the litigation. The majority acknowledged that case law permits non-parties to file appeals in some extraordinary circumstances but said Habelt didn't meet that test because he was not an active participant in the shareholder case after kicking it off. Like iRhythm, the majority said that the proper way for non-parties like Habelt to preserve their right to appeal is to move to intervene in the litigation. "Habelt filed no motion to intervene," Thomas wrote, so he "lacks standing to appeal." Judge Mark Bennett of the 9th Circuit disputed the majority's reasoning in a dissenting opinion that insisted Habelt had standing to appeal both as a party and as a prospective class member whose interests were affected by the dismissal of the case. Habelt never showed any intention of walking away from the case that bore his name throughout the litigation, Bennett said. It's true that he didn't seek to be appointed lead plaintiff, he said. But the law governing private securities litigation doesn't specify that the appointment of a lead plaintiff extinguishes the interest of other named shareholders. Habelt "wasn't a silent voice who should have assumed his silence equaled non-party status," Bennett said. He "had the right to assume that a plaintiff (i.e., a party) who is never dismissed remains a party" unless someone tells him otherwise. Even if Habelt wasn't officially a party, the dissent said, he had a right to appeal a judgment that will impair his ability to bring a new lawsuit against iRhythm because of the preclusive effect of the class action dismissal and time limitations for securities claims. In similar circumstances, Bennett said, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have all allowed non-parties to appeal when they have participated in the trial court and have a stake in the outcome of the case. Bennett also said he would have revived the class action based on the merits of Habelt's appeal, which makes the majority holding on Habelt's standing all the more consequential. You're going to be hearing more about Bennett's dissent: Habelt lead counsel Omar Jafri told me by email that his side intends to seek en banc reconsideration of the majority's decision. "The majority's holding cannot be reconciled with Supreme Court precedent or the law in other circuits," Jafri said. Habelt's lawyers have until Nov. 8 to file the en banc petition. Jumpstart your morning with top legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Chavez Sues Over False Ads on Decongestants -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, a Delaware corporation; RB Health (US) LLC, a Delaware corporation; Bayer Healthcare LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation; The Procter & Gamble Company, an Ohio corporation; Church & Dwight Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation; Walmart Inc., a Delaware corporation; Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation; CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation; Albertsons Companies Inc., a Delaware corporation; Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and John Does 1-200, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00883-JFR-JMR (D.N.M., Oct. 6, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, strict liability-design and manufacturing defect, and for violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. The Plaintiff seeks to recover for the damages related to Defendants' wrongful conduct in connection with the marketing, advertising, promoting, distribution and sale of products containing phenylephrine -- a purported decongestant used as an active ingredient in at least 250 products, including without limitation Sudafed Sinus Congestion, Tylenol Cold & Flu Severe, Nyquil Severe Cold & Flu, Theraflu Severe Cold Relief, Mucinex Sinus Max, and many others, including generic brands developed by major retailers like CVS, Walmart, Target and Walgreens. Headquartered New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. engages in the research and development of products for newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and nursing products. It is also engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and/or distributing certain of the Phenylephrine Products, including but not limited to, Tylenol, Sudafed, and Benadryl. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Colon, Esq, Esq. Robert J. Sánchez, Esq. Jacob Payne, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER 6501 Americas Parkway NE, Suite 670 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Telephone: (505) 587-3473 E-mail: bcolon@singletonschreiber.com rsanchez@singletonschreiber.com jpayne@singletonschreiber.com KENVUE INC: Ozuzu Sues Over Ineffective Decongestant Products ------------------------------------------------------------- CHIOMA OZUZU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENVUE INC., MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, and RECKITT BENCKISER, LLC Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07395 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2023) seeks injunctive relief against Defendants arising from alleged ineffective over-the-counter decongestant products containing the active ingredient phenylephrine (PE). According to the complaint, the Defendants represented and warranted to consumers that PE Drugs were effective for treating the indications identified and were properly branded. Specifically, Defendants represented that PE Drugs were merchantable and fit for their ordinary uses. Unfortunately for Plaintiff and the putative class members, Defendants 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 the PE Drugs ascertain the true efficacy of PE Drugs for treating the indications identified. PE Drugs were advertised as efficacious. If Plaintiff and the putative class members had known that PE Drugs were not efficacious prior to their purchases of PE Drugs, they would not have purchased PE Drugs, the suit says. Kenvue Inc. is an American consumer health company, and formerly the consumer healthcare division of Johnson & Johnson.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond S. Silverman, Esq. Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq. Jason S. Goldstein, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 466-6500 Facsimile: (516) 466-6665 E-mail: rsilverman@yourlawyer.com mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com jgoldstein@yourlawyer.com LGL SYSTEMS: Cook Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty From Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID A. COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LGL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; MARC J. GABELLI; ROBERT V. LAPENTA JR.; TIMOTHY FOUFAS; MARY E. GALLAGHER; MICHAEL J. FERRANTINO; MICHAEL G. MARTIN; JOHN S. MEGA; GEORGE ANTHONY BANCROFT II; HENDI SUSANTO; PATRICK HUVANE; NATHAN G. MILLER; and LGL SYSTEMS NEVADA MANAGEMENT PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2023-1027 (Del. Ch., Oct. 12, 2023) seeks monetary and rescissory damages against the Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duty owed to LGL stockholders arising out of the deprivation of their right to a fully informed decision whether to redeem their LGL shares or to invest in the Merger. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class are former stockholders of LGL Systems Acquisition Corp. who were entitled to redeem their shares in connection with LGL's merger with LGL Systems Merger Sub Inc. and IronNet Cybersecurity, Inc., which resulted in LGL being renamed IronNet, Inc. The Merger was the result of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and IronNet's actual post-Merger results mattered little to the Defendants. They knew that even a bad deal that resulted in a post-Merger stock price drop well below the $10 per share redemption value was much better for them than no deal at all, because it would still provide them with a financial windfall, says the suit. LGL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPANY, LLC operates as a holding company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Herbert Mondros, Esq. RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Seeks to Seal Portions of Documents ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:19-md-02879-JPB (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal portions of Marriott's Brief Addressing the Effect of Class-Action Waiver on Class Certification and Exhibit B to that Brief, which are being filed contemporaneously with this motion. The materials Marriott seeks leave to file under seal consist of documents and information that plaintiffs designated "Highly Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order. Specifically, Marriott seeks to file under seal Exhibit B, Consumer Plaintiff Roger Cullen’s Third Supplemental Responses to Defendant Marriott's Second Set of Interrogatories, which plaintiffs have designated as "Highly Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order, and the portions of Marriott's Brief that discuss the substance of Exhibit B. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fin7Qz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gilbert S. Keteltas, Esq. Daniel R. Warren, Esq. Lisa M. Ghannoum, Esq. Kyle T. Cutts, Esq. Dante A. Marinucci, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-1530 Facsimile: (202) 861-1783 E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com dwarren@bakerlaw.com lghannoum@bakerlaw.com kcutts@bakerlaw.com dmarinucci@bakerlaw.com META PLATFORMS: School Corp. Joins Suit Over Addictive Features --------------------------------------------------------------- Gabbi Lumma at WSBT 22 Reporter reports that Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation has joined a national class-action lawsuit against 14 major social media companies. Those include Instagram, Facebook, and their parent company, Meta. The lawsuit alleges those companies are knowingly targeting advertising towards children younger than 13, intentionally addicting them to the platforms. This is not a new revelation but has become more evident than ever. The lawsuit claims the algorithm of these apps is dangerous, as it takes a user's personal information and arranges content towards that. This algorithm in turn makes engagement skyrocket, therefore increasing company revenue. It also states these companies knew exactly what they were doing – addicting users. Jeff Johnson is the attorney for PHM. "It's just the, you know, the targeting of the youth through these algorithms devolved by some of the brightest minds in the world and you know, to get these kids addicted to the social media platforms," said Johnson. Johnson says there haven't been any specific concerns or incidents within the PHM corporation. Johnson says the two main goals of joining the suit are to garner a regulation or restriction, as well as reimbursement for expenses the school corporation has incurred. "Social media, um, is running rampant without any kind of, hey, don't, um, don't target these young children with, you know, not fully developed minds and everything yet, you know, so that's one thing we're looking at through the litigation," said Johnson. Penn-Harris-Madison and other plaintiffs are requesting monetary compensation as well as other damages. [GN] MOM'S BEST: "Real Honey" Claims in Cereals Disputed in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marian Johns at Legal Newsline reports that a recently filed class action lawsuit questions the 'real honey' claims of Post in one of its lines of cereals. Daniele DiMarco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint Oct. 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Post Consumer Brands, alleging violation of New York General Business Law and other claims. DiMarco alleges in her class action that defendant's Mom's Best Cereals-branded Honey Nut Toasty O's Cereal and Honey Graham Cereal are falsely labeled as made with "real honey." She further alleges the cereal is sweetened with sugar, the product's primary ingredient, and other "synthetic sweeting agents" such as brown sugar syrup, molasses, fructose and dextrose. DiMarco claims the defendant misleads consumers by prominently displaying "Made with real honey" on the cereal's label and is unjustly enriched "at the expense of consumers." She alleges the defendant's actions violate state consumer protection statues. DiMarco and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury and all other just relief. They are represented by Adrian Gucovschi of Gucovschi Rozenshteyn PLLC in New York City. [GN] MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Ex-Homeowners File Suit Over Foreclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Jayati Ramakrishnan, writing for The Oregonian/OregonLive, reports that three former Oregon homeowners have filed a class-action lawsuit against the counties where they used to live after local governments foreclosed on their homes and kept the full proceeds, instead of just the amount needed to cover unpaid taxes. The suit seeks to enforce a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits what authorities can collect following a foreclosure. The Oregon lawsuit singles out Multnomah, Lane and Yamhill counties, where the plaintiffs lived and calls on the rest of Oregon's counties to compensate homeowners for the equity they lost after the counties foreclosed on and resold their homes. The litigation seeks to refund to homeowners some of the money counties made off their home sales, dating back to May 25, 2017. If the plaintiffs prevail in court then counties across Oregon could be on the hook for repaying millions of dollars from foreclosure sales over the past several years. Oregon currently allows counties to foreclose on and sell the homes of residents who owe unpaid taxes and keep all the money -- even if the sale of the property nets more than what the delinquent taxpayer owed. The Supreme Court recently found that practice unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a 94-year-old Minnesota woman whose county foreclosed on her condominium and kept all the proceeds. The court ruled that governments cannot retain surplus proceeds from a foreclosure without giving the former property owners a way to recover those funds. Failing to do so is unconstitutionally taking private property for public use without just compensation. In the Oregon lawsuit plaintiffs described the long-term ramifications they'd faced from their loss of equity. Martin Lynch had accrued nearly $32,000 in unpaid taxes on his Springfield home. In 2020, Lane County foreclosed on his home and sold the property for about $118,500. The proceeds from the sale of the home were nearly $87,000 more than what Lynch owed in taxes but Lane County retained the surplus instead of returning it to Lynch. Following the foreclosure, Lynch had to move to a campground in Klamath County because he lacked the money to afford a house or apartment, according to the suit. "Getting some of the proceeds back would really be life-changing," said Elias Kohn, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. He said some people who fail to pay their taxes couldn't come up with the money because of a health issue or incarceration. "It really affects so many people who are already in a vulnerable position," he said. The other two plaintiffs lost out on smaller surpluses. But their attorneys said even losing small amounts of equity can be devastating. "For so many people, their home is the most important purchase they'll make in a lifetime," said Nadia Dahab, another attorney representing plaintiffs. "To lose equity in their home affects their lives in profound ways." In many cases the people who lose equity in their homes aren't aware they owed any money, according to Kohn. For example, he said, a child who inherits a property may not have been responsible for a parent failing to pay taxes before that previous owner died. Multnomah County Assessor Mike Vaughn declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the county doesn't discuss pending litigation. But he said Multnomah County had already begun reviewing its own practices after the May Supreme Court decision. He said county employees are working to determine what exactly the county can retain, such as the additional fees and interest outside the taxes. And, he said, they're still figuring out how to return excess money to former homeowners. The county is developing an application that former owners can use but he said residents should call the county first if they think they're eligible to collect surplus funds. "Our intent is to fully comply with the Supreme Court, even though there are some items that are not clear in what are considered 'retained proceeds,' " Vaughn said. Vaughn said it's not clear how this lawsuit could financially affect the county. Most of Oregon's counties put surplus funds from home foreclosures into "unsegregated tax accounts," the same account that all property tax dollars go into. Multnomah County, however, has put excess funds from foreclosures into its Joint Office of Homeless Services since 2017. Other states and cities have already begun to pay back funds. In Michigan, 43 counties agreed to pay back tens of millions of dollars to former homeowners who filed a class-action lawsuit. And Washington, D.C., has also agreed to pay about $1 million to people who lost their homes. [GN] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Antitrust Scrutiny, Two Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Yadoo and Leah Nylen, writing for Bloomberg, report that the lucrative broker commission system at the heart of the US residential housing market is facing unprecedented antitrust scrutiny from the Justice Department and two private class-action lawsuits that risk weakening the National Association of Realtors, the industry's powerful lobbying group. Federal antitrust enforcers are poised to decide whether to pursue their own case after a years-long investigation, according to a person familiar with the issue. The Justice Department is focused on the real estate commission-sharing system that typically puts homesellers on the hook for a 5% to 6% cut of the sale, split between their agent and the buyer's agent. It's a structure largely unique to the US, preserved by the association's control of many of the country's multiple listing services -- an essential tool that aggregates properties available for sale in a given region. To use the system, NAR requires sellers to offer compensation to the buyer's representative, which critics say inflates home prices. This practice will also be on trial in two antitrust class actions, including one beginning Monday, Oct. 16, in Missouri. That case could result in as much as $4 billion in damages, while plaintiffs in an Illinois trial early next year are seeking as much as $40 billion. The commission-sharing structure equates to "collusion," Michael Ketchmark, the lead plaintiffs' attorney in the Missouri case, said in an interview. "The day of accountability is coming." The DOJ began investigating residential real estate under the Trump administration, and NAR agreed to measures, including increased price transparency, to settle the case. Biden officials in 2021 pulled out of that agreement, saying they wanted the ability to pursue future antitrust claims against the group, but a federal judge in January said the DOJ is still bound by that settlement. The department is appealing that decision, as the Biden administration expands antitrust scrutiny outside traditional areas. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'Seismic change' The damages sought in the two civil cases -- based on allegedly inflated commissions in each of those markets -- would be a blow to the realtor association and the major brokerages listed as co-defendants that haven't already settled. Re/Max and Anywhere Real Estate Inc. agreed to pay $55 million and $83.5 million, respectively, and to no longer require agents to belong to NAR. But the bigger threat to the industry as a whole would be a nationwide case brought by the Justice Department to dismantle the commission-sharing structure altogether. In the worst-case scenario for the industry, the federal government could seek to ban sharing commissions, prohibiting sellers' agents from compensating buyers' agents. More on housing: Homebuyers hit the brakes, 'smothering' the mortgage marketplace "Our guess is that the lawsuits in Missouri and Illinois will not go that far, but it's possible," Redfin Corp. Chief Executive Officer Glenn Kelman said in an interview. "We think that DOJ action is necessary to reach that level, and that would be a seismic change -- basically, half the real estate agents in this country would be unemployed." Redfin, an online real estate firm, also withdrew from the National Association of Realtors earlier this month, citing its long-held concerns about agent compensation. Commission rates, which often get baked into a home's listing price, are an attractive target for the Biden administration as low housing supply and spiraling mortgage costs combine to create the least affordable housing market in four decades. On a $407,100 house -- the median existing-home sales price -- a 5.5% commission comes to about $22,390. Related: President of National Association of Realtors resigns amid misconduct allegations In some parts of the world, total commissions for each sale are significantly lower -- around 2% in countries like Australia and the UK. The Justice Department highlighted the issue in a recent court filing asking a federal judge in Boston to hold off on approving a potential settlement in another antitrust suit challenging commission rules. The Justice Department "is concerned about policies, practices, and rules in the residential real estate industry that may increase broker commissions," the agency said, asking for a two-month delay to offer further thoughts on the issue. Lower payout Completely untying buyer and seller agent fees could eventually lower commissions by as much as $30 billion annually, according to a study by the Consumer Federation of America, a watchdog group. If aspiring homeowners had to pay agents directly, they would likely shop around before hiring one -- increasing competition -- or pay an hourly or flat-fee service to handle paperwork at closing. "Increasingly the industry is accepting the fact that the rates will eventually be untied, and they're just trying to delay it," Steve Brobeck, former executive director of CFA, said in an interview. NAR says the existing system opens the door to first-time home-buyers, especially from minority and lower income groups. "This case is very much about buyer representation and that being at risk," Mantill Williams, a spokesman for NAR, said in an emailed statement. He said buying a home is a consequential decision and people "shouldn't be forced to go it alone." NAR has said the buyer commission offer doesn't have to be the traditional 2.5% -- the group recently said it could even be $0. But that higher rate persists in most transactions as sellers fear that listing with lower payouts for buyers' agents would cause them to steer clients away -- a concern borne out by recent research. Indeed, in an email to Re/Max affiliates describing the company's settlement in the civil case, President and CEO Nick Bailey reminded agents of their "professional obligation" to show properties regardless of the compensation offer. These changes could also put the future of the National Association of Realtors in doubt. The group collects $150 in annual dues from more than 1.5 million agents. It's a moment of reckoning for the group that last year surpassed the US Chamber of Congress to be the biggest spender on lobbying in the US, laying out more than $80 million in 2022. This unprecedented pressure poses an "existential threat," according to David Greer, who worked with NAR for over a decade. He said the prospect of buyers' agents exiting the industry -- and taking their membership dues with them -- in the wake of any reform has left NAR "immensely afraid." [GN] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Trial Begins in Suit Over Buyer Commissions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that a trial is kicking off against the National Association of Realtors and several real estate companies that are accused of working together to artificially fix the commissions that home sellers pay to buyers' agents. Home sellers are seeking more than $1.3 billion in damages in the Kansas City, Missouri, federal court class action over the industry's "buyer broker" commission rule. The defendants also include Keller Williams, HomeServices of America and two of its subsidiaries. The antitrust case is widely seen as having potential to upend long-established residential real estate practices. Opening statements began on Tuesday, Oct. 17, in a trial that is scheduled to run until Nov. 3 before U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough. "Let people pay the agents who work for them -- and stop making homeowners pay a buyer's agent," lead class attorney Michael Ketchmark told Reuters. Ketchmark said the case challenges the "grip of corporate control" over residential real estate. The class members include sellers of more than 260,000 homes in Missouri and parts of Kansas and Illinois between 2015 and 2012. Chicago-based National Association of Realtors, Keller Williams and HomeServices have denied the allegations. A spokesperson for Keller Williams declined to comment, and the real estate association had no immediate comment. HomeServices did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a court filing, lawyers for the National Association of Realtors argued that the market itself "decides how real estate agents' services are given and paid for." Katie Johnson, chief legal officer of National Association of Realtors, said in a podcast posted on Monday, Oct. 16, that "we're going to show that the rule makes sense and that it's lawful." Two other defendants in the case, Re/Max and Anywhere Real Estate, recently said they would settle claims. Anywhere planned to pay $83.5 million, and Re/Max said it would pay $55 million. Both settlements are pending court approval. Re/Max and Anywhere denied the plaintiffs' claims but settled to avoid the uncertainty of litigation. The case is Burnett et al v. The National Association of Realtors et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB. For plaintiffs: Michael Ketchmark of Ketchmark & McCreight; Eric Dirks of Williams Dirks Dameron; and Brandon Boulware of Boulware Law For The National Association of Realtors: Ethan Glass of Cooley For HomeServices and affiliates: Robert MacGill of MacGill PC; Jay Varon of Foley & Lardner; and Brian Fries of Lathrop GPM For Keller Williams: David Kully of Holland & Knight [GN] NEARLY NATURAL: Elder Sues Over Caller ID Rule Violations --------------------------------------------------------- MARIAH ELDER, individually and on behal of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEARLY NATURAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-019369 (Oct. 7, 2023), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Plaintiff Elder alleges that the Defendant, Nearly Natural, violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by making Nearly Natural Text Message Sales Calls to Plaintiffs and, in doing so, transmitted Plaintiff's caller identification service telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls and that failed to connect to the Nearly Natural Callers. Nearly Natural, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company, which sells various goods through its online store. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com NEW YORK, NY: Carter Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN AZOR-EL, ANTHONY MEDINA, RAMON GOMEZ, RONNIE COLE, DAKWAN FENNELL, JAMES CARTER, MAURICE BARNAR, LANCE KELLY, and WILLIAM CLANTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, CYNTHIA BRANN, VINCENT SCHIRALDI, LOUIS MOLINA, HAZEL JENNINGS, KISA SMALLS, and WARDENS OF DOC DETENTION FACILITIES, Case No. 1:20-cv-03980 (S.D.N.Y.), Carter asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action treatment. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class or classes, or such other class(es) as the Court deems appropriate. (a) A general conditions-of-confinement class, consisting of "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023," which would embrace all inmates, including those whose infection status is not knowable but who were exposed to unlawful conditions. (b) A COVID-infection class/subclass, consisting of: "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023, who either (a) were in custody as of March 1, 2020, and remained in custody at the time they contracted COVID-19 as shown in either a positive COVID test or a retrospective COVID antibody test, or (b) were in custody for at least 14 days, and remained in custody at the time they contracted COVID-19, as shown in either a positive COVID test or a retrospective COVID antibody test." This may include further subclasses depending on the level of injury, such as Long COVID or death. (c) A medically-vulnerable class/subclass, consisting of "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023, who meet one or more of the following criteria: (i) were age 50 or over, or (ii) whom the DOC housed in North Infirmary Command, Elmhurst Hospital Prison Ward, or Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward, or (iii) whom DOC otherwise classified as medically-vulnerable.” Further, the Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint them as class representatives, to appoint Keenan & Bhatia, LLC, and Sonal Bhatia and E.E. Keenan, as class counsel, to direct notice to the class(es), and for such other relief as is just and warranted. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that’s among the world’s major commercial, financial and cultural centers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/499oyP5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward (E.E.) Keenan, Esq. Sonal Bhatia, Esq. KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC 90 Broad Street, Suite 200 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (917) 975-5278 E-mail: ee@keenanfirm.com sonal@keenanfirm.com NEW YORK, NY: Kelly Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v. New York City Department of Corrections et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03990 (S.D.N.Y.), Kelley asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action treatment. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class or classes, or such other class(es) as the Court deems appropriate. (a) A general conditions-of-confinement class, consisting of "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023," which would embrace all inmates, including those whose infection status is not knowable but who were exposed to unlawful conditions. (b) A COVID-infection class/subclass, consisting of: "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023, who either (a) were in custody as of March 1, 2020, and remained in custody at the time they contracted COVID-19 as shown in either a positive COVID test or a retrospective COVID antibody test, or (b) were in custody for at least 14 days, and remained in custody at the time they contracted COVID-19, as shown in either a positive COVID test or a retrospective COVID antibody test." This may include further subclasses depending on the level of injury, such as Long COVID or death. (c) A medically-vulnerable class/subclass, consisting of "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023, who meet one or more of the following criteria: (i) were age 50 or over, or (ii) whom the DOC housed in North Infirmary Command, Elmhurst Hospital Prison Ward, or Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward, or (iii) whom DOC otherwise classified as medically-vulnerable.” Further, the Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint them as class representatives, to appoint Keenan & Bhatia, LLC, and Sonal Bhatia and E.E. Keenan, as class counsel, to direct notice to the class(es), and for such other relief as is just and warranted. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that's among the world's major commercial, financial and cultural centers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46ukVl1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward (E.E.) Keenan, Esq. Sonal Bhatia, Esq. KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC 90 Broad Street, Suite 200 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (917) 975-5278 E-mail: ee@keenanfirm.com sonal@keenanfirm.com NEW YORK, NY: Medina Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Medina v. New York City Department of Corrections et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-03985, (S.D.N.Y.), Fennell asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action treatment. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class or classes, or such other class(es) as the Court deems appropriate. (a) A general conditions-of-confinement class, consisting of "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023," which would embrace all inmates, including those whose infection status is not knowable but who were exposed to unlawful conditions. (b) A COVID-infection class/subclass, consisting of: "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023, who either (a) were in custody as of March 1, 2020, and remained in custody at the time they contracted COVID-19 as shown in either a positive COVID test or a retrospective COVID antibody test, or (b) were in custody for at least 14 days, and remained in custody at the time they contracted COVID-19, as shown in either a positive COVID test or a retrospective COVID antibody test." This may include further subclasses depending on the level of injury, such as Long COVID or death. (c) A medically-vulnerable class/subclass, consisting of "All individuals detained, incarcerated, and/or housed in New York City Department of Correction facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023, who meet one or more of the following criteria: (i) were age 50 or over, or (ii) whom the DOC housed in North Infirmary Command, Elmhurst Hospital Prison Ward, or Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward, or (iii) whom DOC otherwise classified as medically-vulnerable.” Further, the Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint them as class representatives, to appoint Keenan & Bhatia, LLC, and Sonal Bhatia and E.E. Keenan, as class counsel, to direct notice to the class(es), and for such other relief as is just and warranted. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that's among the world's major commercial, financial and cultural centers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45tB6O9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward (E.E.) Keenan, Esq. Sonal Bhatia, Esq. KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC 90 Broad Street, Suite 200 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (917) 975-5278 E-mail: ee@keenanfirm.com sonal@keenanfirm.com NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discloses Private Info to 3rd Party, Frawley Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLIN FRAWLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02197-D (N.D. Tex., Oct. 3, 2023) arises from the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., data containing its digital subscribers' (i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID and (ii) the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff brought this consumer digital privacy class action complaint against Nexstar, as the owner of political digital media platform The Hill, for violating the VPPA by disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and video media to Facebook without the proper consent. The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds of thousands of other The Hill digital subscribers' statutorily protected privacy rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's practices. The Plaintiff began his digital subscription to The Hill in 2019 and continues to maintain the subscription to this day. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. is an American publicly traded media company with headquarters in Irving, Texas, Midtown Manhattan, and Chicago.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ONTARIO: Superior Court Grants Discontinuance of PST Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino at canadianlawyermag.com reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted a discontinuance of a class action lawsuit against the psychiatrists involved in a psychosocial treatment program (PST). In Banman v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 5246, Martha Banman, Louise Bark, and Ruth Atkin commenced a class action lawsuit against the Ontario government, its Attorney General, and two psychiatrists, Drs. Donald Angus Galbraith and Sam Swaminath. The case stemmed from treating individuals in the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital PST program between 1976 and 1992. The plaintiffs moved for a certification of their action as a class proceeding. However, at the commencement of the certification motion, the plaintiffs moved to discontinue the action against the defendant doctors. Ontario government did not oppose the discontinuance after the doctors agreed to cooperate in providing evidence. Counsel for the plaintiffs outlined several reasons supporting the discontinuance: They argued that no additional recovery would be gained from including the defendant doctors. The discontinuance would streamline the claim and reduce the number of parties involved. Evidence presented during the certification motion demonstrated that the defendant doctors joined the hospital after the PST program was already in operation. The hospital administrator and doctors responsible for the initial development and implementation of the PST program have passed away. Moreover, the defendant doctors agreed to attend de bene esse examinations, ensuring preservation of their evidence for any future summary judgment motion or trial of the common issues. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice explained that on a discontinuance motion pursuant to s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act 1992, the court should consider, among other things, whether the parties commenced the proceedings for an improper purpose and whether, if necessary, there is a viable replacement party so that putative class members are not prejudiced. In this case, the court found that the proceeding was not commenced for any improper purpose, as demonstrated by the evidence available to date and filed with the court for the plaintiff's certification motion. The court also found no prejudice to the putative class members as the defendant doctors have agreed to continue participating in the action by providing evidence at de bene esse examinations and at the trial. Furthermore, the court found no prejudice to the Ontario government for similar reasons. The evidence of the doctors is available to both parties in the ongoing proceedings. Accordingly, the court granted the discontinuance against the defendant doctors. [GN] PER SE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Branson Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- DAMON BRANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PER SE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-14846 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 12, 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 Branson was employed by the Defendant as a staff. PER SE GROUP INC. provides professional services. The Company offers recruitment, payrolling, project staffing, talent pool management, and consulting solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kennedy Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEAN KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, and BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12275 (D. Mass., Oct. 3, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, gender, zip codes, and policy numbers. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services and applications involving MOVEit, PSC stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information on its MOVEit transfer services software that was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems or of its customers' networks and systems, including PBI. These security vulnerabilities existed as far back as 2021. As a result of the breach, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, the suit alleges. As a result of Defendants' unreasonable and inadequate data security practices that resulted in the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are at a current and ongoing risk of identity theft and have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, says the suit. Progress Software Corporation is an American public company that offers software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Sean K. Collins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (855) 693-9256 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com PROSPECT MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Stradinger Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA STRADINGER, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08284 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2023) is a putative class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, and violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Customer Records Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and for invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution. The suit arises from Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc.'s negligent failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach of its systems on July 31, 2023 through August 3, 2023. PMH knew that it was a prime target for hackers given the significant amount of sensitive personal information processed through its computer data and storage systems. PMH's knowledge is underscored by the massive number of data breaches that have occurred in recent years. Despite knowing the prevalence of data breaches, PMH failed to prioritize data security by adopting reasonable data security measures to prevent and detect unauthorized access to its highly sensitive systems and databases. PMH has the resources to prevent a breach, but neglected to adequately invest in data security, despite the growing number of well-publicized breaches. PMH failed to undertake adequate analyses and testing of its own systems, training of its own personnel, and other data security measures as described herein to ensure vulnerabilities were avoided or remedied and that Plaintiff's and class members' data were protected, the suit says. Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. is a group of more than 11,000 physicians and 18,000 employees providing health care services at 16 different hospitals across 5 U.S. states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com dimitri@wukolaw.com PROSPECT MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Private Data from Hackers ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. faces a proposed class action that claims the healthcare corporation failed to protect private employee and patient data during an August 2023 cyberattack. According to a September 29 notice letter, the company, after reportedly learning on August 1 that a "data security incident" had "disrupted the operations of some of [its] IT systems," launched an investigation that revealed that an unauthorized third party had, between July 31 and August 3 of this year, accessed and exfiltrated files containing sensitive data. The 94-page lawsuit relays that the stolen files, which Prospect Medical had shared with a third-party vendor, contained personal data belonging to the company's employees and current and former patients, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and health insurance details. Per the suit, the data breach also compromised patients' medical information, including diagnoses, lab results, prescription information, treatment details and medical record numbers. As the case tells it, a ransomware group called Rhysida reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack and posted screenshots of sensitive documents and medical data on the dark web while threatening to sell the stolen information for 50 Bitcoin -- the equivalent of nearly $1.3 million -- if Prospect Medical did not meet its ransom demands. The complaint argues that Prospect Medical, the operator of a network of hospitals and medical centers throughout California, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Texas and Rhode Island, failed to implement adequate cybersecurity protocols to safeguard the sensitive data in its care, which was allegedly stored unencrypted and unredacted in the defendant's systems. The filing contends that the company could have prevented the cyberattack entirely by "properly encrypting private information being shared with its vendors or otherwise ensuring that such private information was protected while in transit or accessible." Despite the frequency of data breaches in the medical industry in recent years, Prospect Medical "recklessly" failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the confidential information in its care, the lawsuit claims. The plaintiff, a California resident and former patient, says he received in September of this year a notice that stated that his personal data had been compromised in the breach. Like other victims, the man now faces a heightened risk of identity theft, medical fraud and other misuse of his information as a result of Prospect Medical's negligence, the case charges. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose private information was compromised in the data breach announced by Prospect Medical in September 2023.[GN] PROSPECT MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Private Info, Mateo Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EVERS MATEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23STCV24391 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 6, 2023) arises from the Defendant's data security failure, in which unauthorized third parties were able to access and exfiltrate data containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from its systems on August 3, 2023. Plaintiff Mateo alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated California individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff further seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, future costs of identity theft monitoring, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, and future annual audits. Headquartered in California, Prospect Medical Holdings owns and operates seven hospitals in California, as well as numerous medical groups. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Kevin M. Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM, LLC 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: kcox@thelyonfirm.com ROMAN CATHOLIC: Sued Over Students With Disabilities Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- Roby Chavez at pbs.org reports that it's homecoming season, but one 16-year-old is missing the rite of passage this year. The sophomore, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, is home-schooled -- and not by choice. The teen's family has sued two local Catholic schools over what it describes as discriminatory admissions practices against students with physical, emotional, or learning disabilities. Now, it has joined a class-action lawsuit that claims that the Archdiocese of New Orleans asks illegal questions about students' disabilities on its schools' application forms. The lawsuit said this kind of practice has denied students with disabilities the opportunity to go to a Catholic school run by the archdiocese. "We're very angry at the Catholic Church. We have not been back to church since this happened," said her mom, who asked that she and her family not be named to protect her daughter's identity. "The fact that the Catholic schools did this to us and no one from the Church even stepped up to make a comment, tried to help us, or offer any kind of empathy and support -- it's very disheartening." It's hard for her daughter, identified only by the initials E.R. in court documents, to watch social media and listen to her friends talk about everyday school milestones that she won't experience, her mother said. "She shouldn't be judged on what school she can go to, depending upon if she walks on two feet or she rolls in a chair. That has nothing to do with where she should go to school," she added. What the lawsuit says E.R.'s family initially sued two separate schools in 2020 when the then-13-year-old started looking for a high school. The latest class-action lawsuit includes her as well as two other students: an 8-year-old boy with dyslexia and a 16-year-old boy with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The lawsuit claims that by asking unlawful questions about disabilities and requesting medical information of prospective students before they are enrolled, New Orleans-area Catholic schools are violating the Louisiana Human Rights Act, which does not have a religious exemption, and the Louisiana Civil Rights Act for Persons With Disabilities, which explicitly prohibits asking such questions as a matter of admissions. The suit also alleges "widespread segregation" of prospective students with disabilities in New Orleans-area Catholic schools, accusing the Archdiocese of New Orleans of directing parents of students with disabilities to apply to a small handful of schools for "exceptional learners," in violation of both acts. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, was put on hold for close to a year by a judge overseeing the archdiocese's bankruptcy proceedings, which now includes 500 claims of child sex abuse by priests and other clergy. This year, another judge said the outcome of the bankruptcy process would have no bearing on the discrimination case and allowed the suit to move forward. A trial date has not been set. The archdiocese canceled an interview with the PBS NewsHour about its admissions and enrollment and has not returned requests for comment on its practices or on the latest figures for how many students with disabilities or special needs are enrolled at its schools. On the Archdiocese of New Orleans' website, data from the 2019-2020 school year indicates that 34,182 students attended Catholic schools in the area. However, it reported that only 205 students -- less than 1 percent of total enrollment -- attended two schools for students with special needs. The archdiocese did not respond to questions about where students with disabilities are enrolled in their education system. On its website, the archdiocese said there are 74 elementary and high schools. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Education reported that 12.4 percent of Louisiana school-aged students received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) in 2021, as did 14.3 percent of students nationally. "The Archdiocese of New Orleans supports and encourages the ministry of Catholic education. We have and always will welcome and encourage children with disabilities to apply." "The Archdiocese of New Orleans supports and encourages the ministry of Catholic education. We have and always will welcome and encourage children with disabilities to apply to our high schools and parish elementary schools," according to the statement. "The thousands of children with disabilities that thrive in our programs are a testament to that fact. The Archdiocese of New Orleans encourages and supports the efforts of Catholic schools to find the resources to implement or expand their ability to provide adjustments in the learning environment for children with exceptional learning needs," spokesperson Sarah McDonald said in a statement to the NewsHour. Christopher Edmunds, a disability rights attorney who filed the latest case on behalf of the families, said "there is no non-discriminatory reason why the school needs to know this information before making an offer of admission." Schools need to know information that will help them prepare for accommodations before a child begins -- for instance if a child with ADHD needs extra time or a different environment to take tests, he said. Under this process, if a school cannot provide an accommodation -- for instance, providing a one-on-one aide at its own expense -- admission could be lawfully rescinded, he added. "They're just shutting people out at the front door essentially. It is illegal under state law to ask these questions in application forms or at any point in the application process, but they use it as a screening device," Edmunds said. "A lot of parents see these questions and they're dissuaded from applying in the first place because they're uncomfortable disclosing the information or they just know that it's going to be used against them." The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages but is asking the court to order the church to remove the questions, change policy, and provide staff with anti-discrimination training. It also asks for legal fees and for the archdiocese to post a public notice that students of all abilities are welcome to attend Catholic schools. 'A lot of tears shed' In the New Orleans area, family tradition plays a large role in high school experiences, especially for those attending Catholic schools. Louisiana has one of the highest rates of private school enrollment in the nation, in part because of the local Catholic culture. More than 518,000 of the 1.2 million people in the New Orleans area identify as Catholic, according to the archdiocese. Twenty-five percent of New Orleans-area students attend private school, more than twice the national average, according to the Cowen Institute at Tulane University, which studies the city's public education system. The girl's mother hoped her daughter would carry on a family tradition of attending the same school. Instead, she said her daughter was blatantly discriminated against and the family received backlash after filing the lawsuits. "There are a lot of tears shed and friends were lost over this. We're now at home school. We didn't just lose friends. We lost the high school experience, and we lost our church community. It was absolutely horrible," E.R.'s mom, a lifelong Catholic, said. "There were still a lot of repercussions for what we did. I have had nasty things said about me. Hell yeah, it was hard, but I would do it again in a heartbeat." Does federal funding make a difference? Edmunds and families of students with disabilities believe it's time to hold the Catholic Church accountable, especially if they are accepting state dollars. Under Louisiana's Civil Rights Act for Persons with Disabilities, educational institutions that receive state money are prohibited from using an application for admissions that "elicits or attempts to elicit information . . . . concerning the disability of an otherwise qualified applicant for discriminatory purposes," according to the lawsuit. Records from the Louisiana Department of Education show the archdiocese and other local Catholic schools received at least $8 million from the state for the 2019-20 school year, according to WWL-TV. The funding was used, in part, for textbooks, school lunches and required services. "They've designated certain schools as schools for kids with learning disabilities, and that's just not legal. Every school needs to accommodate kids with disabilities. I've had instances where schools refuse to accept kids with epilepsy or diabetes," Edmunds said, referring to complaints he's received from parents. "One plaintiff in this lawsuit went to just about every Catholic school in the area for her child who has dyslexia and they all turned her down and said, 'No, we can't accept a child with dyslexia. We don't have any way to accommodate dyslexia.'" The suit cites specific questions and schools asking "unlawful questions about disabilities in their applications for admission," including a request to list "any physical limitations" or "learning disabilities," and asking if a child has "a vision, hearing, speech or developmental delay, among others." The earlier lawsuits E.R.'s family filed also raised questions about local Catholic schools' use of federal dollars. Religious organizations often have an exemption to anti-discrimination laws, but since both schools, Mount Carmel Academy and Cabrini High School, accepted federal pandemic funds under the Paycheck Protection Program, Edmunds believed they violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and had to abide by federal anti-discrimination laws. This meant religious schools that took federal pandemic dollars were subject to federal anti-discrimination suits, he said. Cabrini accepted between $350,000 and $1,000,000 and Mount Carmel received between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, according to the lawsuit. Guidance from the Small Business Administration, which administered the Payroll Protection Program, said that applicants for PPP loans must agree to "not discriminate in any business practice," including employment practices and services to the public on the basis of "age, race, color, religion, sex, handicap, or national origin." In the Mount Carmel case, where the girl's mother is an alumna, administrators left a voicemail saying, "I do want to tell you that we do not have the capabilities of accepting your child. She is just precious–perhaps one day I will meet her," according to the complaint. "However, we don't have the accommodations, and I do think our academic program would be substantially difficult for her." In court documents, Edmunds argued that Cabrini refused to make a "reasonable accommodation" for the girl. The complaint said a Cabrini administrator initially told the family that the girl would not be allowed to bring an aide to school, which she requires because she was not independently able to use the bathroom. She was allowed to use the aide, paid for by her parents, at a previous school. Mount Carmel's website states the school does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, national or ethnic origin. There's no mention of disability. Both lawsuits, which sought compensatory damages, were settled out of court before trial. Edmunds said the overt discrimination is significant for families because it can also involve retaliation in the broader church community as they fight to continue the legacy of a Catholic high school education in their families. Many are now visiting open houses as the lawsuit awaits trial. "The Archdiocese and Catholic schools operate sort of like a cabal. There's this culture of retaliation." "The Archdiocese and Catholic schools operate sort of like a cabal. There's this culture of retaliation where if you try to challenge us in any way, well, we're going to blackball you from the community -- your kid, your other children, and your cousins, none are gonna get into this school or that school," said Edmunds, whose own family has a long tradition of attending the same Catholic high school, including brothers, cousins, uncles, nephews and his grandfather. "I get calls all the time from parents who are furious with the way that they've been treated, but they are terrified of actually doing anything because of the retaliation that they think that they're going to from the church." Shortly after the class-action suit was filed, Edmunds said the archdiocese tried to stop the lawsuit by claiming it removed questions from school applications. Edmunds believes the schools are still seeking that information verbally or by other means. The archdiocese did not return requests for comment on its admissions or enrollment practices. E.R. and her family will miss out on many high school activities because she's being homeschooled, but they have learned a valuable lesson on the importance of making sure kids with disabilities do not face more scrutiny than kids without them. "Not only did it bother me about what they were doing to my kid, but how many other kids were they doing that to? It's been going on for years and years. Nobody did anything about it," she said. "No matter how hard it is. If you don't stand up for your child, nobody else will. That's the bottom line. Standing up for your disabled child is not an easy thing, but you have to do it. You may lose things but you're also going to gain things." [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over SmartTag Tracking Devices -------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown, writing for Blomberg Law, reports that Samsung Electronics America Inc. negligently rushed its SmartTag tracking devices to market without providing safeguards to prevent their use by stalkers and harassers, a proposed federal class action said. Plaintiff Jane Doe alleged that Samsung ignored policy advocates and technology specialists who warned it should "rethink the product and consider its inevitable use in stalking." As a result, the company released an unreasonably dangerous product into the market, misrepresented the harms it has caused, and "facilitated the unwanted and unconsented to location tracking" of Doe and class members, according to a complaint filed on Oct. 16. [GN] SANOFI GENZYME: Judge Allows Final Amendment of Fabrazyme Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Malfitano, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that a federal judge has granted a final opportunity to amend a class action complaint for plaintiffs who claimed significant harm was sustained on behalf of themselves and/or their loved ones based on a shortage of the pharmaceutical drug Fabrazyme that began in 2009 and lasted until 2012. D.J., Toni Cordova, John Cortina, George Demko, Donovan Helton, Mary Helton, Sydney Johnson, Damon LaForce, Michael Masula, James Matthews, Thomas Olszewski, Thomas Stanziano, James Wallace, Jeanne Wallace, Samuel Wallace and Eddie Viers first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 21, 2022 versus Ademola Abiose, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Maryam Banikazemi, Baylor College of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Joel Charrow, Children's Memorial Hospital, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, Dominique Germain, Duke University Health Center, Christine Eng, Massachusetts General Hospital, Michael Mauer, Manesh Patel, Ronald Scott, Katherine Sims, University of Alabama at Birmingham Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of Minnesota, University of Versailles, University of Washington Medicine, David Warnock and William Wilcox. "Plaintiffs and/or their decedents suffered from Fabry disease, a rare, but lethal, heritable, genetic illness, in which a gene for an enzyme required to metabolize a certain fat is mutated or missing, resulting in the build-up of that fat in cells, blood vessels and organs, resulting in inflammation and, ultimately, death. Fabrazyme is a synthetic version of the enzyme that is infused every two weeks to treat Fabry disease and mitigate its effects. Fabrazyme manufacturer, Sanofi Genzyme Corporation, is the sole FDA-approved supplier of enzyme replacement therapy for Fabry disease in the United States market," U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Cathy Bissoon said, in a Sept. 30 memorandum opinion. "The moving defendants include eleven medical centers and their respective physicians. Four of the medical center defendants -- University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of Minnesota, University of Washington and University of Alabama at Birmingham -- are public entities. The physician defendants did not treat any of the named plaintiffs or their decedents; rather, they represented their respective medical institutions as members of the Fabry Stakeholder's Working Group (FSWG), a group of experts convened by Sanofi Genzyme to prepare guidance to the Fabry community on the management of Fabrazyme supply during the drug shortage. The amended complaint alleges that the guidance was disseminated to all Fabry patients and their physicians, nationwide. The lawsuit essentially contends that defendants, through their participation in the FSWG, intentionally initiated a harmful experimental medical protocol on plaintiffs and collected research data on low-dose Fabrazyme efficacy without plaintiffs' informed consent." Bissoon added that on Dec. 5, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint against all moving defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), based upon lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss additionally seeks dismissal of the claims against the public entity defendants and their respective physicians, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2), based on lack of standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity. "After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, the Court agrees with defendants that personal jurisdiction is lacking in this case. As an initial matter, plaintiffs concede the absence of general jurisdiction over defendants, and the amended complaint itself confirms that none of the individual defendants reside in Pennsylvania, and none of the medical center defendants are incorporated, or have a principal place of business, in Pennsylvania. It likewise is undisputed that no federal statute authorizes nationwide service of process for any of plaintiffs' claims. Thus, plaintiffs must establish specific jurisdiction under the minimum contacts analysis or the Calder effects test. This, plaintiffs have failed to do," Bissoon stated. "In short, plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that any of the moving defendants purposefully directed any activities at Pennsylvania, let alone activities from which any of plaintiffs' claims arose or to which they relate. Among other things, there is no evidence (or allegation) that the moving defendants: reside in Pennsylvania; have or had offices in Pennsylvania; have a bank account in Pennsylvania; are licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania; have ever treated patients in Pennsylvania; have directed advertising or marketing at Pennsylvania; have an authorized agent to receive service of process in Pennsylvania; own land in Pennsylvania; or have a mailing address, telephone number or fax number in Pennsylvania. In addition, only two of the named plaintiffs purport to be Pennsylvania residents, neither of whom were patients of the moving defendants." Bissoon further explained that "the only Pennsylvania contact that plaintiffs even remotely assert is the dissemination via FedEx of the two FSWG guidance letters to all Fabry patients nationwide, including any patients who happened to live in Pennsylvania" -- but specified that "neither these contentions nor plaintiffs' conclusory allegations that the FSWG interfered with their patient-doctor relationships and 'forced its will on Pennsylvanians' establishes the requisite minimum contacts with the forum." "The effects test likewise fails to establish personal jurisdiction over plaintiffs' intentional tort claims. Again, as defendants state, even assuming the effects of the alleged intentional torts were felt by Pennsylvania patients, the effects test is not satisfied when, as here, a defendant's 'allegedly tortious conduct impacted a wider population beyond Pennsylvania's borders.' Conclusory allegations aside, plaintiffs have not made any showing that Pennsylvania had a unique relationship with Fabry disease or Fabry patients, or that the guidance otherwise was aimed at Pennsylvania such that Pennsylvania could be said to be the focal point of the tortious activity. In sum, there has been no showing that exercising personal jurisdiction over the moving defendants comports with Pennsylvania's long-arm statute or that haling the moving defendants into court in Pennsylvania would be fair, reasonable or consistent with federal due process standards for specific jurisdiction. Accordingly the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction will be granted as to all moving defendants," Bissoon concluded. "For these reasons, the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted without prejudice. Should plaintiffs choose to amend their complaint, they may do so by Oct. 17, 2023. Given that plaintiffs already have amended their complaint once, they must make last, best efforts in these regards, because further opportunity for amendment will not be afforded. If plaintiffs do not timely file an amended complaint, identifying a valid jurisdictional basis for proceeding, all claims against the moving defendants will be dismissed without prejudice, to plaintiffs' ability to re-file this lawsuit in an appropriate forum." For counts of tort and constitutional rights violation claims and violation of the Interstate Compact Clause, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable and/or restitution damages, medical monitoring, costs of suit and any other and further legal and/or equitable relief to which plaintiffs might be entitled at law, or which this Court deems proper. The plaintiffs are represented by Allen Black Jr. and Charles Allen Black of the Law Office of C. Allen Black, in Pittsburgh. The defendants are represented by Thomas F. Cocchi Jr. of Husch Blackwell, in Washington, D.C., Abigail A. Golden, Mark E. Anderson, Samuel Lewis Tarry Jr. and Natalie L. Zagari of McGuire Woods, in Charlotte, N.C., Raleigh, N.C., Tysons, Va. and Pittsburgh, Peter Joseph Fazio of Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, in New York, N.Y., Joseph Comer and Andrea Kott of Barker Castro & Steinback, in Chicago, Ill., Jacob C. Lehman of German Gallagher & Murtagh, in Philadelphia, Beth A. Bryan and William E. Braff of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, in Cincinnati, Ohio, Bruce Megard Jr. and David M. Norman of Bennett Bigelow & Leedom, in Seattle, Wash., Tory A. Weigand of Morrison Mahoney, in Boston, Mass., Cole Robinson Gresham and Jay Michael Ezelle of Starnes Davis Florie in Birmingham, Ala., Sandra L. Alven of Riley Hewitt Witte & Romano, in Pittsburgh, plus Michael Grimaldi, Jon Peter Kardassakis and Ashley N. Rodgers of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, in Los Angeles, Calif. and Pittsburgh. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00752 From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com [GN] SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces Suit Over Misleading Nonstick Cookware ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges the maker of Ninja NeverStick Premium Cookware has misled consumers by falsely claiming that the products never stick, chip or flake in comparison to "traditional pans," supposedly due to the extremely high temperature at which the company claims the items are manufactured. The 19-page case contends that SharkNinja Operating LLC's claim that the superiority of its nonstick cookware stems from the fact that the items are manufactured at a maximum temperature of 30,000 degrees Fahrenheit is deceptive in that, for one, such a temperature is nearly 20,000 degrees hotter than the surface of the sun. As the complaint tells it, SharkNinja "would have the average consumer believe that their nonstick pans are manufactured at a temperature that would vaporize the aluminum pan base metal into gas." "That is a physical impossibility with aluminum vaporizing into gas at 4,478ºF," the case says of the defendant's 30,000-degree boast. At any rate, the lawsuit alleges SharkNinja's product claims are wholly false given that the pans chip, flake, and lose their nonstick feature "within a month or just a few months of purchase," and more rapidly than less expensive competitor products. The suit says SharkNinja's purported manufacturing process ultimately does not ensure that the pans will "never" lose their nonstick feature, or otherwise resist chipping or flaking for the first three years of use. "Defendant says, 'the difference is in the degrees,' but nothing could be further from the truth," the filing alleges. The suit focuses in particular on a marketing image of a laser beam coming into contact with an aluminum pan, bearing the statement "Heated to 30,000°F." The case contends that this imagery conveys to consumers that the heat at which the pans are made creates a "superior bond" between "plasma ceramic particles" and the pan's aluminum, as well as a superior nonstick surface. "That false claim defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics," the lawsuit says. According to the suit, SharkNinja has been "particularly aggressive" in marketing its NeverStick cookware in an effort to differentiate the products from others in an increasingly crowded nonstick cookware market. The case notes, however, that the National Advertising Division of Better Business Bureau National Programs (NAD) previously came down on SharkNinja in August 2021 over the company's "never sticks" claims, finding that the boasts were false and misleading as they relayed a message of "unsupported superiority" over other products. "The NAD recommended that Defendant discontinue 'express and implied claims' that its NeverStick Premium Cookware 'never sticks, chips or flakes' and discontinue another misleading claim that it supposedly afforded consumers a 'lifetime guarantee.'" The lawsuit says that although SharkNinja agreed to comply with NAD's decision, the company's "revised" product packaging and advertising -- which swaps out "never" with "won't" -- amounts to "a meaningless word change that is no less deceptive to reasonable consumers" than the company's "other false and misleading claims." Although SharkNinja claims that its NeverStick cookware is made at 30,000 degrees Fahrenheit, the pan is oven-safe to only 500 degrees Fahrenheit, the filing states. "It is axiomatic that if any pan was forged in a crucible of 30,000°F, it would be able to withstand temperatures above 1/60th of that used during the manufacturing process," the case reads. "This pan cannot." In reality, the suit says, the Ninja NeverStick products are no better than nonstick competitors, such as those made by Farberware, Williams Sonoma and others. "The Defendant is correct in one aspect of its marketing. 'The difference is in the degrees' which, in this case, is to say that there is no difference between NeverStick Premium Cookware Products and its much less expensive competitors." The case looks to cover all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought in New Jersey, whether online or in-store, NeverStick Premium Cookware products advertised with the "never sticks, chips or flakes" or 30,000-degree-manufactured claims. [GN] SLEEPY'S LLC: Gundell Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY GUNDELL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Gundell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sleepy's LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3-15-cv-07365, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges violations of New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"), the New Jersey Furniture Delivery Regulations ("FDR"), and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"). On March 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants' refusal to provide a refund for a non-conforming product and further unlawful contractual language in its invoices to that effect violates the TCCWNA, FDR, and CFA, and further seeks declaratory judgment that the limitation of liability provision in the sales order invoice is null and void. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on April 23, 2019. Oral argument was heard on the Motion to Dismiss before the Court on Nov. 5, 2019. On Dec. 18, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Zahid N. Quraishi on Dec. 6, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on Feb. 3, 2023. On Aug. 28, 2023, the Court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint's Count II with prejudice through an Order entered by Judge Robert Kirsch. The Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was dismissed as moot. The appellate case is captioned Jeffrey Gundell v. Sleepy's LLC, et al., Case No. 23-2780, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 6, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY GUNDELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Javier L. Merino, Esq. Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (201) 355-3440 (732) 545-7900 Defendants-Appellees SLEEPY'S LLC, et al. are represented by: Meaghann C. Porth, Esq. CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY 690 Lee Road, Suite 300 Wayne, PA 190087 Telephone: (610) 964-1900 - and - N. Ari Weisbrot, Esq. 1099 Allessandrini Avenue New Milford, NJ 07646 Telephone: (201) 788-6146 STANDARD WELL: Resio Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT RESIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANDARD WELL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-03719 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 3, 2023) is a civil action brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendant's failure to pay all due and owing overtime wages to Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members. The Plaintiff was employed from September 2021 through December 2022 as a Derrick hand, performing various manual labor tasks associated with Defendant's oil and gas operation. He asserts that Defendant failed to pay manual laborers like him time and one half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a seven-day workweek. Standard Well Services, LLC is an oil and gas company organized under the laws of the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Canizales Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa Canizales, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Superior Healthplan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01220 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 8, 2023) arises from the Defendant's unlawful use of artificial or prerecorded voice calls in connection with non-emergency calls it places to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent. Plaintiff Canizales alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. She seeks relief against the Defendant's conduct that caused her to suffer an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance. Located in Travis County,Texas, Superior Healthplan, Inc. is a managed care organization that provides health care to 2 million Texas residents. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com TEP ROCKY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Jolley Suit to 10th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jolley Potter Ranches Energy Co., LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TEP Rocky Mountain LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00495-DDD-NRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Jolley owns royalty interests in five TEP oil and gas leases that are the subject of this action. As required by C.R.S. section 34-60-118.5(2)(a), TEP accounts to Jolley and other members of the Putative Plaintiff Class for gas produced and marketed from their leaseholds on a monthly basis, as set forth on the checks it sends to them. On April 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. On Feb. 14, 2023, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher filed a Report and Recommendation to grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court: grant that portion of the motion that seeks to certify a class to pursue the residue gas claims asserting that: (i) TEP's deduction of transportation costs was unreasonable in those situations where it sold gas downstream when the index price for in-Basin sales exceeded the downstream sale price; and (ii) TEP unreasonably allowed Concord to deduct demand charges for in-Basin sales of gas (and failed to disclose the existence of those charges to royalty owners); grant that portion of the motion that seeks to certify a class to pursue the affiliate claims, via a subclass defined as "members of the class who are subject to deductions from royalties for gathering and processing costs"; and deny that portion of the motion that seeks to certify a class to pursue the residue gas claims asserting that TEP unreasonably sold gas downstream where there was a price advantage to selling downstream but where total transportation deductions exceeded that price differential. On Sept. 21, 2023, Judge Daniel D. Domenico accepted and adopted Judge Gallagher's Report and Recommendation. The Class Definition proposed by the Plaintiff was approved as modified to exclude the Category 12 leases from the transportation claim. The Plaintiff was appointed as class representative, and counsel for the Plaintiff was appointed as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The appellate case is captioned TEP Rocky Mountain LLC v. Jolley Potter Ranches Energy Co., LLC, Case No. 23-707, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 6, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Jolley Potter Ranches Energy Co., LLC and TEP Rocky Mountain LLC notice of appearance is due on October 20, 2023; -- Jolley Potter Ranches Energy Co., LLC and TEP Rocky Mountain LLC disclosure statement is due on October 20, 2023; and -- Jolley Potter Ranches Energy Co., LLC miscellaneous response was due on October 16, 2023. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC is represented by: Christopher Anthony Chrisman, Esq. Michelle Rebecca Seares, Esq. John Frederic Shepherd, Esq. HOLLAND & HART 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 295-8000 Plaintiff-Respondent JOLLEY POTTER RANCHES ENERGY CO., LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nathan A. Keever, Esq. DUFFORD, WALDECK, MILBURN & KROHN 744 Horizon Court, Suite 300 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Telephone: (970) 241-5500 - and - Ryan Meyer, Esq. David G. Seely, Esq. FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH 301 North Main, Suite 1900 Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 267-7361 - and - George Robert Miller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF G.R. MILLER 534 Main Avenue Durango, CO 81301 TH PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Geer Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JASON GEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TH PLASTICS, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01058-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich., Oct. 6., 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was an employed by Defendant from November 2020 to September 2023. He asserts that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's non-discretionary bonuses or hourly incentive pay as required by the FLSA. Headquartered in Mendon, MI, TH Plastics is a custom plastic injection molding company that supplies to the appliance and automotive industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: "Mass Arbitration" Class Suit on Hold ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hillel Aron at courthousenews.com reports that a federal judge hit the pause button on a class action brought against Ticketmaster over the company's practice of settling customer grievances through "mass arbitration." An "unusual case" by the plaintiffs' own admission, the suit principally is an objection to Ticketmaster's unilateral change of the part of its terms of use agreement with customers that details how most legal disputes are settled in arbitration. The new arbitration system uses a different firm, New Era ADR, to mediate the lawsuits. "New Era ADR will group their cases together for any reason it deems appropriate," the plaintiffs say in their complaint, filed in January 2022. "The batched cases will then be assigned to a single decisionmaker... [who] will then preside over the selection and litigation of a few bellwether cases, during which all other consumers will be forced to wait with no progress on their cases, and after which the outcome of those bellwether cases will be forced on all consumers. The New Era agreement thus requires consumers to engage in a novel and one-sided process that is tailored to disadvantage consumers." Ticketmaster had, appropriately enough, filed a motion to compel the plaintiffs in this class action into, yes, arbitration. At a hearing in July, U.S. District Judge George Wu said he thought Ticketmaster's decision to change its arbitration system without clearly notifying customers "boggles the mind." He later denied the motion to compel arbitration, writing that the changes to the terms of use were "procedurally and substantively unconscionable." Ticketmaster appealed. Recently the Ninth Circuit announced it would hear the appeal on an expedited schedule, a decision that Wu called "somewhat surprising." Ticketmaster, which is owned by the publicly traded multinational Live Nation Entertainment, then filed a motion to stay the case pending the appeal. The plaintiffs in the case, Ticketmaster customers, did not oppose the motion. They also filed their own motion, asking the judge to put off ruling on their own motion to enjoin Ticketmaster from once again changing their terms of use regarding arbitration. The judge granted both motions, without much argument from either side. The Ninth Circuit has yet to schedule oral arguments in the appeal, but those could happen as early as January or February. This year, a Ninth Circuit panel sided with Ticketmaster in a different fight over arbitration. That fight stemmed from an antitrust suit in which the plaintiffs claimed Ticketmaster used its market dominance to inflate ticket prices. The plaintiffs said that they shouldn't be forced into arbitration because the company hadn't used its full legal name on paperwork. Ticketmaster faces at least one other similar dispute by Taylor Swift fans, who have a putative class action before Wu over the botched ticket sale fiasco in November 2022, in which the ticket seller's website crashed after it was overwhelmed by mix of Swifties and bots. The debate left thousands of "preregistered" fans without tickets, despite having waited online for hours. Ticketmaster will likely ask for that legal dispute to be sent to arbitration. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Vehicle Filters --------------------------------------------------------------- rnz.co.nz reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed alleging thousands of Toyota cars sold in New Zealand since 2015 are faulty. Shine Lawyers filed the lawsuit at Palmerston North High Court last month, which estimated 35,000 Hilux, Fortuner and Prado models had been fitted with a defective diesel particulate filter. The models were manufactured from 1 October 2015 and fitted with a 1GD-FTV engine or 2GD-FTV engine. The filter was required for the cars to meet Euro 5 emission standards. The fault meant it produced foul-smelling white smoke and was believed to negatively affect performance and efficiency, Senior Associate Hamish Davies said. "The proceedings allege that this would likely reduce the value of the vehicles and the lawsuit is seeking compensation for affected owners." Owners could have incurred repair costs, excess GST and finance costs paid when purchasing their vehicle, inspection fees, service costs, and loss of income connected to owning a defective vehicle, he said. The Australian Federal Court ruled in favour of 250,000 owners in a similar case in 2019, finding the value of the vehicles was reduced by 10 percent. "Even if your vehicle was repaired or sold on, you could still be entitled to compensation," Davies said. The class action was being funded by Court House Capital, an Australian-based litigation funder. Meanwhile, Toyota New Zealand said it would defend the class action lawsuit. "Toyota has been and remains committed to assisting any customer whose vehicle experiences a [filter] issue and will continue to provide any related repairs free of charge. This has been our position to date, and we will defend the class action announced today," a company spokesperson said. "As this matter is now before the courts, we have no further comment." Toyota New Zealand provided RNZ with a standard filter guide for Toyota vehicles, but it made no mention of the faulty filters.[GN] U.S. STEEL: Must Face Mon Valley Residents' Air Pollution Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- On Monday, October 16, 2023, the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied U.S. Steel permission to appeal an Allegheny County court's decision to allow six Mon Valley residents to represent more than 123,000 of their neighbors in a lawsuit over air pollution from U.S. Steel. The lawsuit, Hernandez v. U.S. Steel (Case No. GD-19-005325), arose in December 2018 after a massive fire disabled U.S. Steel's pollution controls at its coke works in Clairton, Pennsylvania. When U.S. Steel continued production during the 102 days it took to restore those controls, the plant's sulfurous emissions spiked and local officials warned residents of 22 communities surrounding the plant to limit their outdoor activities. The plaintiffs claim that, during these 102 days, Mon Valley residents suffered noxious odors, burning throats, watering eyes, headaches, nausea, and trouble breathing at their homes. By denying U.S. Steel permission to appeal, the Oct. 16 ruling allows the representative plaintiffs to move forward to seek damages for more than 123,000 residents of the 22 communities. Over 50,000 households will receive an informational notice in the mail that provides further information about the case and gives residents the option to stay in the case or opt out. "We're glad the Superior Court decided to reject U.S. Steel's meritless appeal," said Sarah Siskind, lead attorney for the plaintiffs and a partner at Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. "This ruling brings us one step closer to holding U.S. Steel accountable to its Mon Valley neighbors." "The Superior Court's decision reinforces one of the most important class certification decisions in Allegheny County history, if not all of Pennsylvania," said Jim Pietz, another attorney for the plaintiffs and a partner at the Pittsburgh law firm Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC. The class action lawsuit will now proceed to trial. The plaintiffs welcome contact from any residents of the 22 communities who would like to provide information about their experience in the 102 days after the fire. Residents can call or text (412) 545-3473, or sign up for case updates using the contact form on the following webpage: www.MonValleyPollution.com. About Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. Founded in 1971, MBG represents a broad range of individual, government, non-profit and corporate clients with offices in Chicago, Ill., and Madison, Wis. The firm is nationally known for its class action practice in environmental law, civil rights, employment rights, voting rights, predatory lending, as well as for complex litigation against government fraud. Its environmental practice includes individual and organizational representations, regulatory enforcement, and private law claims to protect the environment, people and their property from corporate polluters. Distinguished MBG alumni include President Barack Obama, multiple federal judges, a MacArthur Foundation fellow, and law professors at leading universities. For more information: www.LawMBG.com. CONTACT: Sarah E. Siskind Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. ssiskind@lawmbg.comMatthew J. Owens Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. mowens@lawmbg.com [GN] UNITED STATES: Sen. Durbin Comments on Immigration Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Oct. 17 released the following statement regarding the settlement agreement in the Ms. L vs. Immigration and Customs Enforcement class action lawsuit: "The announcement is a win for the hundreds of families who endured severe trauma due to the Trump Administration's cruel and inhumane family separation policy—a policy that went directly against the values of this nation. The prior Administration chose to separate thousands of children from their parents or guardians, inflicting permanent trauma on these children with no plan to reunite them. We owe it to these families to ensure that we never repeat this dark period in our history. "I applaud the entire Biden-Harris Administration for their steadfast commitment to ensuring these families receive the resources they need to aid in their recovery." Durbin was an outspoken critic of the Trump Administration's family separation policy and called on then U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to resign as a result. He was also the lead requester of three investigations into the policy -- one to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG), oneto DHS OIG, and one to the Department of Justice (DOJ) OIG. [GN] UNITED STATES: Settles Migrant Families' Class Action v. Trump -------------------------------------------------------------- Democracy Now reports that the Biden administration has reached a long-awaited settlement in a landmark class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU and migrant families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border under former President Trump. If approved, the settlement will bar the federal government from enforcing a blanket policy to separate migrant families for at least the next eight years -- only allowing the practice under limited circumstances. The deal also includes relief for migrants affected by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy, including permission to remain in the United States, access to legal services and work permits, medical and mental healthcare for families dealing with trauma, and housing benefits. The ACLU said at least 4,500 children and their families will be impacted by the settlement. ACLU lead attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement, "While no one would ever claim that this settlement can wholly fix the harm intentionally caused to these little children, it is an essential beginning." President Biden has himself faced backlash over harsh border and immigration policies which have also led to the separation of asylum-seeking families. [GN] VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Faw Suit Seeks Refund of Tuitions and Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- MEREDITH FAW, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03897-CMR (E.D. Pa., Oct. 6, 2023) arises from the Defendant's retention of the tuition and fees paid by Plaintiff and the other putative Class members for in-person education and services not being provided. The Plaintiff paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. Beginning in approximately March of 2020, Plaintiff was forced to take her classes remotely, refrain from visiting campus, and prevented from utilizing various on-campus services for which she paid. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the pro-rated, unused amounts of the fees that she and other putative Class members paid, but for which they were not provided the benefit, as well as a partial pro-rated tuition reimbursement representing the difference in fair market value between the on-campus product for which they had paid, and the online product that they received. A private university founded in 1842, Villanova offers 50 undergraduate programs and over 40 master's, doctoral and professional programs. Its undergraduate program enrolls students from Pennsylvania as well as throughout other states and countries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Telephone: 412-322-9243 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com WALGREENS BOOTS: To Settle Rite Aid Investors' Merger Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Reuters reports that Walgreens Boots Alliance (WBA.O) has agreed to pay $192.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit by investors in Rite Aid (RADCQ.PK) who accused Walgreens of misleading them in 2017 about scrutiny of the two drugstore chain operators' then-pending merger. The deal filed in Pennsylvania federal court is subject to approval by District Judge Jennifer Wilson. David Knotts, an attorney for the shareholders, said the case was "intensely fought." "We're very pleased with the result and look forward to the court's review," he said. A spokesperson for Walgreens declined to comment. The Rite Aid investors sued Walgreens and its executives over statements they made about the proposed merger between the two major U.S. pharmacy chains, which was first announced in 2015. The lawsuit accuses Walgreens of downplaying scrutiny from U.S. antitrust regulators starting in October 2016. Walgreens ultimately scrapped the takeover plan in June 2017 after failing to win approval from the Federal Trade Commission. Walgreens, which operates stores under its own name as well as Boots stores in Britain and Duane Reade stores in the United States, instead bought around 42% of Rite Aid's existing stores that year for $4.38 billion. The settlement with investors comes on the heels of Rite Aid filing for bankruptcy protection as it struggled with high debt and costs from opioid litigation. Under the current proposed bankruptcy plan, the company's shares would be dissolved with no compensation to shareholders.[GN] WASHINGTON POST: Faces Suit Over Misleading Subscription Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- Northern California Record reports that a class action lawsuit is accusing the Washington Post Company of fraud for allegedly misleading customers by advertising alleged "phantom discounts" on subscriptions on its website. "To sell more subscriptions and increase its profits, WP engages in a systematic and pervasive false-reference pricing scheme," says the lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court. "It does so on its website by deceptively advertising digital subscriptions at prices that are designed to give the impression that the subscriptions are on sale and that they usually are sold at substantially higher prices. In reality, the subscriptions continuously are sold by WP on its website at or near the falsely claimed 'sale' price and never or almost never are sold at the purported regular and customary price." The "deceptive pricing scheme" used images of a higher price with a strike through it, next to much lower prices, "thereby giving the false impression that the lower prices were discounted from the strikethrough reference prices," the suit says. "The strikethrough reference prices are misleading because they do not represent the actual prices at which WP regularly sold or sells the falsely discounted subscriptions. For an unreasonably extended period of time, i.e., from at least as far back as January 2021, if not earlier, WP has advertised and sold the falsely discounted subscriptions at the purportedly discounted prices, not at the strikethrough reference prices." The suit seeks unspecified money damages, plus legal fees. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Eric A. Grover and Rachael Jung, of Keller Grover LLP, of San Francisco; and Scott D. Bernstein, of Folsom. Hirlinger v. WP Company LLC San Francisco Superior Court, CGC-23-609585 [GN] WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Appluewhite Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIA APPLUEWHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.; and WILLIAMS-SONOMA DIRECT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-05235 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Appluewhite was employed by the Defendants as a staff. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC. is an American publicly traded consumer retail company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 440 N. Barranca Ave., #1228 Covina, CA 91723 Telephone: (310) 928-1277 Email: matt@parmet.law - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com ZYMERGEN INC: December 5 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Zymergen Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No. 5:21-cv-06028-PCP PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION BIAO WANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Defendants. To: all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and prospectus issued in connection with Zymergen Inc.'s April 2021 initial public offering. You could be affected by a class action lawsuit against Zymergen Inc. ("Zymergen") and Individual Defendants Josh Hoffman, Enakshi Singh, Steven Chu, Jay T. Flatley, Christine M. Gorianc, Travis Murdoch, Matthew A. Ocko, Sandra E. Peterson, Zach Serber, and Rohit Sharma, and Underwriter Defendants J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (collectively "Defendants"). The Court, which authorized this notice, is allowing the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of a "Class" and appointed attorneys as "Class Counsel." The Court has not decided whether Defendants did anything wrong. Defendants have not been ordered to pay any money. No settlement has been reached. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. What is this case about? The lawsuit alleges Zymergen sold approximately 18.5 million shares of common stock and raised $575 million pursuant to a Registration Statement, which allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions in violation of §§11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"). Lead Plaintiff alleges that the truth was publicly disclosed by Zymergen, including in August and November 2021, when Zymergen announced downward revisions to expected revenue, delays and cancellations in its product pipeline, and smaller market opportunities for its products as well as the departure of members of management. Lead Plaintiff alleges that when the truth was disclosed, the Class suffered statutory damages under the Securities Act. Defendants deny the allegations in the lawsuit, deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing, and believe that the claims are without merit. Are you included? You are a potential "Class Member" only if you purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and prospectus issued in connection with Zymergen's April 2021 initial public offering. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of Zymergen, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class is any person or entity that timely and validly requests exclusion from the Class. What are your options? If you want to stay in the Class, you do not have to do anything now. If you do nothing, you will stay in the Class and be bound by the Court's orders and will lose any right you may have to sue Defendants regarding the factual circumstances and/or claims in this case. If you do not want to be a Class Member or to be bound by what the Court does and want to keep any rights you may have to sue Defendants over the factual circumstances and/or claims asserted in this case, you need to exclude yourself. To be excluded, you must send a letter to Zymergen Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, ATTN: EXCLUSIONS, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100, and must include certain information, as set forth in the Notice available at the website listed below. If you choose to exclude yourself, you cannot get money or benefits recovered if any are awarded at a later date. The deadline to exclude yourself is December 5, 2023. Where to get more information? This notice is only a summary. For more information, visit www.ZymergenSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-888-858-5903. [*] Germany Adopts New Type of Consumer Protection Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Gibson Dunn on Oct. 17 disclosed that as of October 13, 2023, Germany has adopted a new type of class action. The new law is an incremental step towards more collective redress in Germany. The new regime maintains the existing restriction that requires qualified consumer protection organizations to bring the action. However, these entities may now seek damages from defendants directly on behalf of the class. Together with the several coinciding factors detailed below, the new class action might lead to a more fundamental change in the German litigation landscape. The previous collective redress regime only allowed for declaratory judgments. After obtaining a judgment, plaintiffs had to file individual lawsuits to get the desired relief, i.e. payment of damages. This two-tier mechanism was one of several factors that evoked substantial criticism in Germany. It also made the so called "Declaratory Model Action" ("DMA") unpopular with plaintiffs. In the five years since its inception in 2018, only roughly 35 DMAs were filed. The German legislator estimated in 2018 that 450 DMAs would be filed per year. The new class action aims to address the deficiencies of the existing regime. It is based on the EU Directive 2020/1828 on Representative Actions (which we discussed in a prior client alert). The EU Directive requires all EU member states to implement new class action regimes by 2023 while allowing them considerable leeway to implement the directive's broad requirements into their national legal systems. The Netherlands, for example, have created a plaintiff-friendly class action system with an opt-out mechanism. Germany, on the other hand, has opted for a cautious evolution of its collective redress provisions. The hallmarks of the new German regime and our predictions for its future relevance are set forth below: Qualified Entities as Plaintiffs Just like under the previous regime, the new class action can only be brought by qualified consumer protection organizations under German law as well as qualified entities from other EU member states (so-called qualified entities -- QEs). This requirement is meant to prevent frivolous class actions. The consumer protection organizations are required to inform consumers on their homepages about all representative actions they are planning to or have already filed, as well as the status of all pending actions. Potential defendants may be able to use this as an early-warning system for new class actions against them. Permissible Relief Qualified entities can now directly sue defendants for damages or other forms of relief on behalf of the consumers concerned. After a favorable verdict for the class, the court will request the parties to devise a settlement on how to distribute the funds. If no settlement is reached, the court will appoint a claims administrator to distribute the funds. Funds which are not claimed by consumers or cannot be distributed to class members are transferred back to the defendant. There is no potential for a cy-pres award like in the U.S. Broad Scope Under the EU Directive, the member states are only obliged to allow class actions with regard to an exhaustive list of EU provisions on consumer protection. Germany has not restricted the scope of collective redress. All matters that could be litigated in an individual civil lawsuit in Germany can be litigated in the new class action. This includes classic subject matters for collective redress such as product safety and mass torts as well as the emerging litigation issues around ESG, data privacy, and private enforcement of new EU legislation (i.e. the EU Digital Markets Act or its proposed AI Regulation). Class Definition Unlike many class actions in the U.S., consumers have to opt-in to join a German class action and there is no requirement for class certification. However, the qualified entity acting as plaintiff will have to show in its statement of claim that at least 50 consumers are affected by the class action and that the consumers' claims present substantially similar questions of law or fact. These two prongs are reminiscent of the numerosity and commonality requirements in U.S. class actions under Rule 23 (a) FRCP. Consumers will have a longer period for considering an opt-in than before. They can opt into the class until three weeks after the conclusion of the oral hearing. This allows consumers to react to positive developments late in the proceedings. Limitations on Third-Party Funding The new law allows third-party funding for class actions, but imposes fairly strict requirements. If the requirements are not met, the class action will be dismissed. Any third party funding a class action may not be a competitor of the defendant or in any way (economically) dependent on the defendant. More importantly, the third-party funder must not be promised more than ten percent of the proceeds from the class action. If a class action is funded by a third-party, the plaintiff is obliged to disclose its arrangements with the funder. These prerequisites will likely deter many third-party funders from entering the German class action litigation market. No Additional Discovery Provisions Germany has not made use of the leeway under the EU Directive to allow for more discovery in consumer class actions. While courts can order a party to produce certain documents clearly defined by the other party, there will be no U.S.-style discovery in German class actions. However, courts may now repeatedly fine parties up to EUR 250,000 if they fail to comply with a court order to produce the requested document or item. Parallel Individual Actions Consumers who have not opted into the class action will be able to sue the same defendant individually for the same claims as in the class action. Defendants will, therefore, have to prepare to defend numerous individual lawsuits in parallel to the new class action. Cost Recovery As is customary in Germany and the EU, the losing party will be required to bear the costs of the class action. This again is meant to discourage frivolous lawsuits. In theory, this also includes the opposing party's legal fees. However, the recoverable amount is limited by statute and depends on the amount in dispute. The new German law caps the amount in dispute at EUR 300,000. This equals a maximum amount for recoverable legal fees in the range of EUR 10,000. Tolling of Statutes of Limitations Opting into a class action suspends the statute of limitations for consumers -- even for consumers who later opt out again. Therefore, consumers can toll the statute of limitations by opting into a class action as a mere precaution. They are free to opt out at a later stage and pursue individual claims against the defendant, as long as they opt out before the cut-off point three weeks after the first oral hearing on the merits. Settlements Similar to U.S. class actions, all settlements in German class actions must be scrutinized by the court. The court will reject the settlement if it is not "fair". Settlements are final and binding for the parties as well as the consumers who have opted into the class action. However, consumers may opt out of a settlement within a month after the settlement was published in the class action register. Outlook The new law has been met with both approval and criticism from stakeholders and interested parties. For the time being, the new class action regime as such will certainly not turn Germany into a class action hot spot. However, in combination with ever increasing regulatory activity by national and European rule makers, an increasing focus on private enforcement of regulations, and a German judiciary that is generally willing to create consumer-friendly law, such as in the context of the diesel emissions cases, this may provide to be just the perfect mix for a more fundamental change of the German litigation landscape in the long run. Companies are certainly well advised to monitor closely whether they may be the target of class actions under the new German regime, and to prepare accordingly. The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this client alert: Alexander Horn, Markus Rieder, Friedrich Wagner, and Annekathrin Schmoll. [GN] [*] PFAS Manufacturers Seek Reverse of Class Cert. Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Andy Monserud at courthousenews.com reports that manufacturers of "forever chemicals" faced off with a firefighter at the Sixth Circuit, seeking to reverse the certification of a class action that could eventually include over 99% of Americans. Ten companies, including chemical giants 3M Co. and DuPont Co., argued in Ohio that a prospective class of millions exposed to chemicals commonly known as PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFAS, and PFOA, or perfluoocatonic acid, would be unhelpful to exposed people and would lack standing. A federal judge in that state had improperly certified the class, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement said, which includes "individuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum." Clement argued that the prospective lead plaintiff, retired firefighter Kenneth Hardwick, had not established that he had been injured by the presence of PFAS in his blood — nor that any of the other 11 million or more Ohioans in that class would be able to do so. Known as forever chemicals for their persistence in the environment, PFAS have been used in countless consumer products since their invention by 3M in the 1940s. In recent years, they've been found to have accumulated in air, water, soil and human blood, in part because the chemicals' carbon-fluorine bonds prevent them from easily degrading. The effects of the chemicals on human health remain unclear, but early studies suggest they may harm the liver and kidneys and suppress immune responses. Hardwick says his exposure to PFAS through firefighting foam and uniforms has given him and others ample cause for concern about the chemicals' persistence in their blood. On behalf of Hardwick, lawyers from the Cincinatti-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister argued in a brief that their client's exposure to PFAS and PFOA subjected him to potentially "harmful, synergistic interactions" between PFOA and any of the thousands of PFAS manufactured by 3M, DuPont and the other defendants. "We would argue that he, the class, 99% of Americans, have already been injured," wrote attorney Aaron Herzig, alluding to Southern District of Ohio U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus' indication in his order that the class could be expanded beyond the state's borders, pending findings on state law regarding Hardwick's proposed relief outside of Ohio. Taking up a point raised by Clement, the panel of judges emphasized that concern about future illness was the most concrete injury Hardwick had pleaded. "How is it certainly impending?" asked Judge Raymond Kethledge, a George W. Bush appointee. "If we're looking at future risk alone, your own pleadings say you don't know what the risk is." Clement also pointed to issues of traceability. "We have a deposition where Mr. Hardwick has essentially conceded that he doesn't know which of these defendants was the source of the PFAS," he said, echoing arguments in 3M's briefing. Asked by Kethledge whether Hardwick could sue PFAS' inventors, Clement argued that, even if he could, it was unclear whether Hardwick could pick out "who is the inventor of these 5,000 different substances." Also at issue was the relief Hardwick had received in Sargus' order: an injunction ordering the creation of an independent panel of scientists to study the effects of PFAS and PFOA in the bloodstream. Scientific study, Clement argued, was at best a novel form of injunctive relief and at worst an attempt to shift the costs of research onto PFAS makers without evidence of an injury. "All of us probably take in gamma rays, all of us take in carbon dioxide," Clement said. "I don't know of any common-law battery that everybody in the state could pursue simultaneously." An injunction creating an opt-out class of millions entitled to medical testing didn't sound to him like a popular class to join. "The relief is supposed to be indivisible," the attorney said. "You don't have a situation like this where the science panel is only going to study stuff that most class members don't care about . . . Go to the doctor four extra times a year and get their blood drawn? Thank you, no." "At the end of the day, if it's a shared . . . exposure that we all have in common, then why do we need an Article III court? That's a perfect subject for legislative hearings, or the Ohio EPA." Even if the scientific work did find harm, Clement argued, that would create grounds for divisions of the class between those who developed illnesses attributable to a buildup of PFAS and those who did not. Herzig, the plaintiff attorney, said Clement and his clients were seeking to minimize the degree of negligence and harm caused to nearly all Americans. The outcome they were seeking, he argued, would mean that "if enough people manufacture a toxin, and contaminate us without our consent, and hide the fact that they've done that from the people and the government, then they can get away with it." The three-judge panel of Kethledge, Biden appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Andre Mathis and Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Amul Thapar asked pointed questions of both attorneys but was decidedly more critical of Herzig's arguments. "It seems that what this case is about is: The legislature and the executive branch hasn't given you the relief you sought, and so you're going to us to remedy that," Thapar told Herzig. Kethledge was notably skeptical of whether Hardwick could trace his claimed injuries to any particular company. "Where in the record supports, plausibly, that . . . each of [the defendant companies] is responsible for PFAS in your client's bloodstream?" the judge asked. "You haven't pointed me to anything in the record." "I don't know yet," Herzig responded. "OK," Kethledge continued. "That seems to be the problem with this case." Earlier this year, 3M agreed to pay at least $10.3 billion to settle claims against it for contaminated drinking water supplies. Fellow PFAS manufacturers Chemours, DuPont and Corteva settled similar claims for $1.19 billion.[GN] [*] U.S. Employment Discrimination Suit Filings in 2023 Up by 50% ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stacy Thomas at hcamag.com reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its 2023 employment discrimination lawsuit filings, and there is more than a 50% increase over 2022. Lawyers are warning employers to be ready for more litigation in the coming year. Out of 143 employment discrimination filings in the EEOC's last fiscal year -- October 1, 2022 to September 30, 2023 -- 25 were systemic cases, almost double the amount of systemic suits filed in the last three years. There were 32 non-systemic class lawsuits filed by the EEOC, and 86 suits filed on behalf of individuals. More discrimination investigations In their annual round-up of EEOC litigation, Duane Morris class action lawyers Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley and Alex Karasik said that since the EEOC's 2024 federal budget was increased by over $26 million, employers will be seeing a rampup in employment discrimination investigations. After a downturn in employment discrimination cases during the pandemic, Maatman said, the needle is trending upward, with Civil Rights Act Title 7 cases making up the majority, at 68%. "The takeaway from all of this is, the EEOC is busy," said Maatman. "The EEOC is adding investigators, the EEOC is filing more lawsuits." AI discrimination lawsuits on the rise The lawyers outlined some main areas for HR professionals to be aware of, one of which is AI employment discrimination cases, which are anticipated to steadily rise as organisations continue to implement more technology into their processes. Most Read Latest California workplace marijuana law leaves even more space for litigation 'The EEOC is busy': class action employment lawyers warn HR California's Hyatt Regency Long Beach slapped with $4.8 million Right to Recall fine "The EEOC has been very vocal in the space over the last two years," said Karasik. He explained that since the EEOC launched its Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative in 2021, it has been more focused on how emerging technologies used by HR departments to recruit, hire and pay employees are impacting the industry. Maatman added that he believes the EEOC is currently "searching for the quintessential AI case" to bring to court to establish a precedent for AI employment discrimination law. "It's looking for the exact set of facts that will present to a court a situation that the EEOC thinks it can win, and that it will make law," said Maatman. "So I think that employers using artificial intelligence have to be uber aware of the EEOC's special radar and focus on that particular area, and that is an area that is laden with risk, that more often than not is going to see the inside of a courtroom in the next 12 to 24 months." Gender identity and transgender discrimination Since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2020 (Bostock v. Clayton County) that ruled that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender identity violates Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC has been cracking down on discrimination against LGBTQ workers, Karasik said. For example, in March 2023, the EEOC charged T.C. Wheelers, Inc. in New York, alleging the restaurant's management and employees deliberately misgendered and harassed an employee because of his transgender status and gender identity. "The issue of gender identity and pronouns has become something that's increasingly more prevalent in the workplace," Karasik said. "And for those employers that haven't gotten around to training employees on what are the proper ways to address certain individuals in their workforce, this case is an example of how such behavior can ultimately amount to an EEOC-initiated litigation." Remote Work Increasingly Protected Another area of focus is remote work accommodations, where Maatman pointed out the EEOC has been taking a more employee-sympathetic approach remote work as a disability accommodation. For example, the EEOC charged a pediatric health clinic in Georgia, Atlanta, for firing an employee who wanted to work remotely to be near her emotional support animal. In a statement, the EEOC found that action "a clear violation of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], which the EEOC is proud to enforce." The pandemic demonstrated that many jobs can be performed from home, Karasik explained, and many EEOC agents themselves worked remotely during COVID-19. "The EEOC is not necessarily attacking head-on the remote work issue, but it's popping up in various ways," he said. "Which suggests that theme of the EEOC taking a stance on the availability and the use of remote work, and trying to shift the thinking there, in terms of making it more prevalent as a potential accommodation . . . that threshold is really a moving target, in terms of where we are today versus where we may have been several years ago, and I think it'll be interesting to see where that line goes in the next five years."[GN] [*] Wash. Employers Face Class Suits Over Pay Range Disclosure Law ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adam T. Pankratz, Esq., Ron Chapman, Jr., Esq., and Zachary V. Zagger, Esq., of Ogletree Deakins, disclosed that employers in Washington are facing a flurry of class actions alleging violations of the state's new pay transparency law. While it is too early to gauge the viability of the claims, employers doing business in Washington may want to be on alert and may want to review job postings in light of the new law's technical requirements. Quick Hits Employers in Washington face a flurry of class actions related to the state's law requiring disclosure of salary ranges or wage rates, a general description of benefits, and other compensation information in job postings. The lawsuits seek damages of at least $5,000 for each alleged job applicant for each job posting that failed to comply with the law. Background In March 2022, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 5761, which updated Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA) to require pay transparency in job postings. Specifically, the law, codified in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 49.58.110, requires employers with fifteen or more employees to affirmatively disclose in each job posting the salary range or wage scale offered for the position, in addition to a general description of all benefits and other compensation offered for the position. The law defines a "posting" -- printed or electronic -- as "any solicitation intended to recruit job applicants for a specific available position, including recruitment done directly by an employer or indirectly through a third party." The pay transparency law made Washington one of a growing number of states, including California, Colorado, and New York, with similar pay transparency laws. These laws are placing burdens on employers with regard to setting and disclosing compensation information to all potential applicants, including those applying for remote positions, and handling the fallout from potential perceived pay discrepancies between job postings and existing positions. While the Washington law was ostensibly meant to promote pay transparency, some had warned that its statutory damages provisions would increase liability for companies as they grappled with the law's broad, and somewhat undefined, requirements. Those initial fears appear to be coming true, at least in the short term, as exhibited by this recent slew of lawsuits. Recent Developments Since the Washington law went into effect on January 1, 2023, job applicants have filed dozens of putative class actions against employers alleging they applied for job openings for positions in Washington where the employers did not disclose salary ranges or wage scales, describe the benefits, or include other compensation information. The suits seek not only declaratory and injunctive relief but also statutory damages in the amount of actual damages or $5,000 per violation, whichever is greater, for each applicant. With potential damages of $5,000 per violation per applicant and a nearly inexhaustible pool of applicants for jobs, the lawsuits have the potential for devastating liability for employers. Next Steps Many of these lawsuits are still in the early stages and it is unclear how they will play out. Still, employers in Washington may want to take note of the increasing number of suits and the potential for liability. As such, employers may want to review their job posting policies and agreements with third-party recruiters to evaluate their job postings in light of the pay transparency requirements. They may also want to conduct pay audits and review desired compensation for various positions. In setting compensation ranges, employers may want to consider qualifications, such as experience, education, and geography. Ogletree Deakins' Seattle office and Pay Equity Practice Group will continue to monitor and report on developments with respect to the EPOA and will publish updates on the firm's Class Action, Pay Equity, and Washington blogs. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Reset J&J's Motion to Erase PI Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDLEY, et al., v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Case No. 3:22-cv-02970 (D.N.J., Filed May 23, 2022), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered an order setting October 24, 2023 schedule for Johnson & Johnson's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as well as its Motion to Strike Class Allegations and/or Deny Class Certification. In light of oral argument, the Clerk is directed to administratively terminate the motions pending at ECF Nos.24 &25 and to reopen and reset the motions for the October 25, 2023 Motion Day. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability. Johnson is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation.[CC] ********* 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 ***