/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231030.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 30, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 217 Headlines 3M CO: Judge Issues Order Warning MDL Claimants of Scammers AEROTEK AVIATION: Kinney Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AKUMIN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Ontario AMAZON.COM INC: Consumer-Rights Group Sues Over Privacy Violation ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Tibbs Balks at Illegal Collection of Biometrics AUTOZONE INC: 401(k) Fee Class Action Heads to Trial BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Consumer Class Suit BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit BEYOND MEAT: Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing Pending in CA Court BLUE CROSS: Class Action Over Fertility Treatment Policy Okayed BRIGHT HEALTH: Faces Marquez Suit in New York BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Martin Sues Over Excessive Rate Hikes BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Newton Alleges Excessive Insurance Rate Hike BRITO CLEANING: Faces Maria Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. CAESARS HOLDINGS: 401(k) Plan Investors File Class Action CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Allen Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Asmaro Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Leonard Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Turpel Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing CERENCE INC: Faces MFFPORT Securities Suit CERENCE INC: Faces Pena Suit Over BIPA Violations CERMAQ CANADA: Salmon Price-Fixing Settlement Approval Set Nov. 30 COEXIST GAMING: Burgess Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages COMPASS GROUP: Martin Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages DO IT BEST: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DOCTORS MEDICAL: Beltran Suit Transferred to D. California DONALD TRUMP: Averts ACN Fraud Class Action DURHAM SCHOOL: Cardona Suit Removed to C.D. California EARGO INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action EMANUEL MEDICAL: Harrill Suit Transferred to D. California EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES: S/M Merger Files Securities Class Action EXP REALTY: Holton Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida FGNA CORP: Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal Ongoing in Del. Ch. FLATIRON WEST: Gaefcke Suit Removed to E.D. California FORD MOTOR: Skole Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts FRANCESCA'S ACQUISITION: Doherty Files Suit in S.D. Texas FURHAVEN PET: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GAMMABILLING INC: Booe Suit Removed to C.D. California GANAHL LUMBER: Novela Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Kinnally Sues Over Share Price Drop GOODRX HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit in CA Court GOSHEN HOSPITAL: Ind. High Court Takes Up Class Action Question GRUMA CORPORATION: Zamora Suit Removed to N.D. California HABERFELDE FORD: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARTFORD INSURANCE: Trent Files Suit in D. Arizona HOME DEPOT: Castellanos Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia INSPIRATO INC: Koch Files Suit Over SEC Filing INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 13 J.B. WHOLESALE: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bader Files Suit in D. Arizona KATAPULT HOLDINGS: McIntosh Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NY Court KENOSHA COUNTY, WI: Ruderman Sues Over Forced Labor Provisions KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CPAP Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. OK KROTO INC: Faces Class Action Over Price Comparisons LEMOYNE-OWEN COLLEGE: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIZARD THICKET: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LYFT INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over IPO Stayed MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces CGIG Securities Suit MCDONALD'S AUSTRALIA: Court Issues Ruling on Settlement CFO Issue MERCYHURST UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MERRILL GARDENS: Walls Suit Removed to N.D. California MISSION ESSENTIAL: Sued Over Failure to Protect Information MOLSON COORS: West Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling MONARK GOLF SUPPLY: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NATIONAL WESTERN: Discloses Payment of Settlement in Class Suit NAVY FEDERAL: Stephenson Sues Over Failing to Conduct Investigation NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Ramirez Suit Removed to C.D. California NEWMAN UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEWMARK GROUP: Faces Suit for Breach of Contract NORTH STAR AUTO: Faces Motino Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. NURSES FIRST SOLUTIONS: Onyia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ORGAIN LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Beverages' False Ads ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Somogyi Suit OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Carpenter Shareholder Suit OUTDOOR RESEARCH: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PACIFIC MARITIME: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PENSION BENEFIT: Berry Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PENSKE TRUCK: McDowell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PERFORMANCE RUNNING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PROCTER & GAMBLE: Lee Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Bailey Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Berry Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PROGRESS SOFTWARE: McAdam Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Restrict Reply PUBLIC STORAGE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York QUALCOMM INC: Faces Class Action Over Employee Retirement Plan RELIANT LIFE SHARES: Reed Suit Removed to C.D. California RPT REALTY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Kimco Merger SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Deibler Suit Transferred to D. Utah SANT P. CHAWLA: Torres Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sadasey Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection SANTEE COOPER: Non-Profit to Get $484,345 from 2021 Settlement SBARRO LLC: Flanagan Suit Removed to C.D. California SCORES CHICAGO: Rattunde Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage SELENE FINANCE: England Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices SKYLIGHT HOLDINGS: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SMCH INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SNAP FINANCE: Class Settlement to be Heard on January 23, 2024 SOLARWINDS CORP: Securities Suit Over Cyber Attack Dismissed SOLARWINDS CORP: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod SOLARWINDS CORP: State Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit SONDER HOLDINGS: Wang Data Breach Suit Ongoing in Colorado Court STROM AVIATION: Matlak Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Faces Fung Securities Suit SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces UAPP Suit in New York TITAN CHAIR: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TONY'S FINE FOODS: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRANSUNION CORP: Averts Class Action Over FCRA Violation UNIVERSITY OF FINDLAY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UPSTART HOLDINGS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing UPSTART HOLDINGS: HFA Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing Dismissed UPSTART HOLDINGS: PCRA Voluntarily Dismisses Suit UPSTART HOLDINGS: Ward Shareholder Suit Dismissed UPSTART HOLDINGS: Zhang Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed UWM HOLDINGS: TOGL Antitrust Suit Ongoing in Florida Court VERRA MOBILITY: Faces Brantley Suit in Louisiana VISTRA CORP: Certification of Class Action Under Appeal WALMART INC: Wertymer Sues Over Improper Labeling of Products WALT DISNEY: Shareholder Suit Disputes Disney+ Subscriber Data WELLS FARGO BANK: Miller Auto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. YALE-NEW HAVEN: To Settle Class Action Over Retirement Fees [*] Australia Sees Uptick in Class Action Filings Post-Pandemic [*] Calif. Gov. Signs Bill to Prevent Automatic Litigation Stays [*] PFAS Contamination Class Action v. AFFF Manufacturers Pending ********* 3M CO: Judge Issues Order Warning MDL Claimants of Scammers ----------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Nicolette J. Zulli, Esq., and Zachary J. McCormack, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that in the massive proceeding known as In Re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:19-MD-0288 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2023), Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida recently issued a novel order warning claimants and attorneys to beware of scammer phone calls asking for sensitive personal information. The Court advised that imposters pretending to be employees of Settlement Administrator Archer Systems LLC ("Archer Systems") had called numerous claimants involved in the 3M Company ("3M") Combat Arms Earplug ("CAE") multi-district litigation ("MDL") asking for social security numbers and date of births to confirm participation in the $6 billion settlement deal reached in August 2023. This fraudulent activity to retrieve personal information comes as the result of a Reddit post leaking the telephone number Archer Systems previously used to contact claimants. In response to this post, scammers spoofed outgoing calls to claimants using this number, thereby prompting the Court's intervention. Judge Rodgers explained the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") has been notified of the scam and advised claimants to be vigilant in shielding personal sensitive information from possible scammers. Judge Rodgers issued his order to encourage all claimants involved in the MDL to immediately contact their lawyer if contacted by someone claiming to be an Archer Systems employee. This swindle in the administrative process of a massive settlement presents as the latest iteration in the onslaught of cyber-attacks, data, and security breaches affecting consumers in recent times. Case Background 3M, the Minnesota-based conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods, produces thousands of products under several brands. Between 2003 and 2015, 3M and subsidiary, Aearo Technologies Inc., manufactured and supplied United States military service members with CAE to protect them from loud military training and combat noises. The earplug's short design did not provide enough coverage to certain users' ear canals, failing to form a proper seal, and exposing military service members to harmfully loud noises. This resulted in numerous users reporting hearing loss and other ear issues. In 2016, Moldex-Metric, Inc., a California-based competitor, filed a whistleblower lawsuit against 3M, claiming that these defective earplugs did not meet the standards for protection required by the government. In 2018, 3M paid over $9 million to the Department of Justice, and shortly following this settlement with the government, numerous individualized lawsuits poured in from military service members. In 2019 these lawsuits were centralized in the Northern District of Florida, and in August 2023, after a court-ordered mediation, 3M reached a settlement with the 260,000 claimants who formed the largest MDL in the history of the United States. In the wake of the August settlement, an unknown Reddit user leaked the telephone number Archer Systems used to contact claimants in the CAE settlement. Scammers quickly took action, disguising calls with the number and contacting claimants, to ask for social security numbers as well as birthdates, in an attempt to commit identity theft. Upon learning about the scheme, Judge Rodgers issued his cautionary order on October 14, 2023. The Court's Order The order warns claimants "THIS IS A SCAM," and that the FBI had been notified. The order further advises claimants on how to protect their sensitive personal information from potential scammers. It goes on to educate claimants on the fraudsters' approach: that Archer Systems is not directly contacting claimants unsolicited, nor is it utilizing auto dialer or auto caller bots. Rather, that Archer Systems will only ask claimants for the last four digits of their social security number, not the entire number, and that claimants should not respond to any emails from anyone representing themselves as Archer Systems. The Court's order discourages claimants from sharing information regarding this settlement on social media, since it appears the anonymous Reddit user obtained the Archer Systems telephone number through a claimant's social media post. Finally, the order directs counsel to send a copy of the order to represented claimants, as well as advising the court clerk to forward the order to pro se claimants. Legal Implications Overall, the Court's order comes in response to yet another fraudulent scheme to trick one of the most visible segments of the population -- America's veterans -- into providing sensitive information that could result in identity theft, and ultimately, substantial financial and other damage. Scammers have utilized similar identity theft schemes in recent class action litigation, but are now exploiting posts on social news websites and forums -- in this case, Reddit -- to spur novel and inventive fraud schemes. Crafty scammers continue to profit off litigation covered by the media, tricking service members into surrendering sensitive information. In today's world of social media and artificial intelligence, the online environment is riper than ever for unforeseen methods of fraudulent abuse. As illustrated by this case, modern scammers utilize a large "bag of tricks" to obtain sensitive information and employers should be prepared to review and adapt company policies and procedures incessantly to ensure effective protection of employee and company data. [GN] AEROTEK AVIATION: Kinney Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- GALEN KINNEY, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEROTEK AVIATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02688-ABA (D. Md., Oct. 4, 2023) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Kinney worked for Aerotek as an aircraft mechanic staffed to the National Institute for Aviation Research in Wichita, Kansas from approximately January 2023 until July 2023. He asserts that although he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week, Aerotek did not pay him overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, Aerotek paid Kinney (and other workers like him) the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those after 40 in a week. Aerotek Aviation, LLC is a full-service aviation staffing company that provides aviation professionals to companies throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. 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: tjones@mybackwages.com 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 AKUMIN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Ontario --------------------------------------------- Akumin 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 currently facing a putative class action claim filed on December 20, 2021 with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of Ontario Securities Act, negligent misrepresentation and other related claims relating to the restatement of the company's financial statements that were filed in 2021. On February 17, 2023, the plaintiff delivered a motion record for certification and for leave to commence action under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act. Akumin Inc. provides outpatient radiology and oncology services to health systems, hospitals, physician groups, and patients all across the country. AMAZON.COM INC: Consumer-Rights Group Sues Over Privacy Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Stupp, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a consumer-rights group in the Netherlands sued Amazon on Oct. 18 over its alleged practice of tracking website visitors' online activity, using recently expanded legal provisions allowing class actions. The lawsuit, filed in a Dutch court by Stichting Data Bescherming Nederland, or SDBN, said Amazon is violating the European Union's privacy law by monitoring visitors to popular websites through cookies -- the pieces of code that identify individual browsers to create targeted advertisements -- without their permission. [GN] ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Tibbs Balks at Illegal Collection of Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------------ CASEY TIBBS, ANDREW CASTILLO, and ERIC WILIM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-05096-VKD (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2023) seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in collecting, storing and using their and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent and failing to provide the requisite data retention and destruction schedule, in direct violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises a Person Detection feature as part of its home security system. The Defendant's home security systems capture pixelated infrared scans of people and collects and stores these biometric identifiers and information to detect humans. In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of BIPA, the Defendant collected, stored, and used the biometric identifiers and biometric information of Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers making deliveries to homes using Defendant's home security system, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois delivery drivers and to recover statutory damages. Arlo Technologies, Inc. is a home security company that offers security cameras supported by high quality video and artificial intelligence monitoring.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com AUTOZONE INC: 401(k) Fee Class Action Heads to Trial ---------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class action challenging AutoZone Inc.'s use of a 401(k) investment allocation service from Prudential Financial Inc. is poised to go to trial after a federal magistrate judge said the case was viable. The trial was scheduled to begin Oct. 23, two weeks after Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham issued a sealed report and recommendation on the parties' summary judgment motions. According to a Oct. 17 court filing by the AutoZone plan participants, that 149-page report—which can be accepted, rejected, or modified by the presiding judge—recommended that "almost all" of their claims proceed to trial. [GN] BEYOND MEAT: Faces Consolidated Consumer 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 "Cascio v. Beyond Meat, Inc.," No. 1:22-cv-04018 (July 8, 2022, E.D.N.Y.) 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. Initial case was captioned "Miller v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-06336 (July 26, 2022, S.D. N.Y.) 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: Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing Pending in CA Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 on May 11, 2023, a class action complaint captioned "Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Beyond Meat, Inc." was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the company's common stock between May 5, 2020 and October 13, 2022, inclusive. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and certain current and former officers and directors made false and misleading statements or omissions regarding its ability to manufacture its products at scale and to its partners’ specifications. The complaint seeks an order certifying the class, damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' and expert fees, and other unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. The case is at a preliminary stage. Beyond Meat, Inc. is a plant-based meat company offering a portfolio of plant-based meats. BLUE CROSS: Class Action Over Fertility Treatment Policy Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Laus, writing for JDJournal, reports that in a significant legal development, an Illinois woman, Kelsey Murphy, has received a green light from a federal court to proceed with a proposed class-action lawsuit against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois (BCBS). The lawsuit alleges that BCBS's fertility treatment coverage policy runs afoul of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) anti-bias provision. Court Identifies Discriminatory Aspects of BCBS's Fertility Treatment Policy The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has determined that it is reasonable to infer that BCBS intentionally discriminates based on sex. The alleged discrimination centers on BCBS's requirement for individuals in same-sex relationships to prove infertility to qualify for fertility treatment. This requirement necessitates demonstrating an inability to conceive after a year of unprotected sex between a man and a woman. Denial of BCBS's Motion to Dismiss In a significant blow to BCBS, the court denied the health insurer's motion to dismiss Kelsey Murphy's lawsuit, centered on BCBS's alleged violation of Section 1557 of the ACA. Section 1557 prohibits discrimination in healthcare programs and activities, mainly when it is based on characteristics such as sex that are protected by other civil rights statutes. Section 1557 and Protection Against Sexual Orientation Bias While there has been considerable debate surrounding the interpretation of Section 1557 in the courts, both parties in this case agreed that this provision prohibits bias based on sexual orientation. BCBS contended that the facts did not substantiate Murphy's claim despite this consensus. Denied Coverage for Fertility Treatments Kelsey Murphy and her partner rely on fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization, to fulfill their desire for children. However, in 2020, BCBS denied her coverage, asserting that she did not meet the policy's requirements. BCBS's Definition of Infertility Under Scrutiny Central to the lawsuit is BCBS's 2020 policy, which defined infertility as the inability to conceive after a year of unprotected sex or "attempts to produce conception." BCBS argued that its policy was not discriminatory, as it provided participants with several alternative methods to establish infertility. Sexual Orientation Discrepancy in Policy The court, however, pointed out a critical discrepancy in BCBS's policy. The policy's definition of unprotected sex expressly referred to sex between a man and a woman. This effectively meant that a cisgender woman would qualify for coverage if she could not conceive after one year of unprotected sex with a man. In contrast, a lesbian woman would be required to demonstrate infertility through alternative means, incurring out-of-pocket costs solely to prove that she couldn't conceive. Lack of Consideration for Same-Sex Relationships The court further emphasized that BCBS's policy could not reasonably be interpreted to suggest that an individual in a same-sex relationship could meet the policy's requirements by simply confirming that they do not engage in heterosexual relations. Judge LaShonda A. Hunt underlined that if it were true that a covered individual in a same-sex relationship met the definition of "infertility," BCBS should have covered Murphy's IVF treatment instead of forcing her to pay out-of-pocket. This court ruling not only allows Kelsey Murphy's lawsuit to proceed but also brings into focus an important legal challenge regarding the interpretation and implementation of healthcare policies in the context of sexual orientation and discrimination. It remains to be seen how this case will influence future cases and healthcare policies nationwide. [GN] BRIGHT HEALTH: Faces Marquez Suit in New York --------------------------------------------- Bright Health Group, 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 January 6, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the and certain of its officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York captioned "Marquez v. Bright Health Group, Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-00101. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations, and compliance policies, which in turn adversely affected its stock price. An amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2022, which expands on the allegations in the original complaint and alleges a putative class period of June 24, 2021 through March 1, 2022. The amended complaint also adds as defendants the underwriters of the company's initial public offering. The company has served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which has not yet been ruled on by the court. Bright Health Group, Inc. and subsidiaries operates in care delivery and care solutions segments. BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Martin Sues Over Excessive Rate Hikes ------------------------------------------------------------ Brighthouse Financial, 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 currently facing case captioned "Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company" (April 6, 2021, S.D. N.Y). Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company as well. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of universal life insurance policies issued or administered by defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on improper factors and should have decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. He seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees, interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2021, which was denied in February 2022. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY was initially named as a defendant when the lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a defendant, without prejudice, in April 2022. Brighthouse Financial, Inc. and together with its subsidiaries, is a holding company formed in 2016 to own the legal entities that historically operated a substantial portion of MetLife, Inc.'s former retail segment until becoming a separate, publicly-traded company in August 2017. Brighthouse Financial is a provider of annuity and life insurance products in the U.S. through multiple independent distribution channels and marketing arrangements with a diverse network of distribution partners. BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL: Newton Alleges Excessive Insurance Rate Hike ------------------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Financial, 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 currently facing a class action lawsuit pertaining to issues of cost of insurance in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, filed May 8, 2020. In the case captioned "Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company," plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. He sought to certify a class of all persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year. He also alleges that cost of insurance charges was based on improper factors and should have decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages, interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part in March 2021. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. On January 18, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion on consent to amend the second amended class action complaint to narrow the scope of the class sought to those persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued in Georgia. The motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended class action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023. Brighthouse Financial, Inc. and together with its subsidiaries, is a holding company formed in 2016 to own the legal entities that historically operated a substantial portion of MetLife, Inc.'s former retail segment until becoming a separate, publicly-traded company in August 2017. Brighthouse Financial is a provider of annuity and life insurance products in the U.S. through multiple independent distribution channels and marketing arrangements with a diverse network of distribution partners. BRITO CLEANING: Faces Maria Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- LUIS CASTRO MARIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRITO CLEANING & MAINTENANCE CORP., and CHRISTIAN PERALTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08740 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to: (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which he did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, (iii) back wages for overtime work for which the defendants willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay, (iv) back wages for overtime work for which the defendants willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay, (v) liquidated damages, and {vi} statutory damages. Plaintiff Maria was employed at Brito Corp. as a food distributor from approximately July 2017 through October 2020. Brito Cleaning & Maintenance Corp. owns and operates a cleaning, maintenance and subcontracting service in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 CAESARS HOLDINGS: 401(k) Plan Investors File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that two participants in Caesars Holdings Inc.'s $1.6 billion 401(k) plan sought class-action status in their lawsuit saying the plan lost millions after outside manager Russell Investments Trust Co. swapped all of its funds for its own affiliated offerings. The proposed class includes about 42,000 people covered by the Caesars Entertainment Inc. unit's plan between August 2017 and December 2021, excluding anyone who had responsibility over plan management. These potential class members suffered a common injury stemming from a set of decisions made by the defendants about the plan's investments and administration, plaintiffs Danny Wanek and Juan Duarte said. [GN] CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Allen Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ----------------------------------------------------------- Canopy Growth Corporation 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 9, 2023, an ostensible shareholder pro se commenced a putative class action captioned "Allen v. Canopy Growth Corporation, et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-05891) against the company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between May 31, 2022 and May 10, 2023. Said putative class proceedings alleged that the company violated U.S. federal securities laws by allegedly making false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the "BioSteel" business unit, the company's internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, and the company's business, operations, and prospects. Each proceeding seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, legal fees and costs, and other relief. Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation, incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production, distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada. CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Asmaro Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ Canopy Growth Corporation 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 June 15, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action captioned "Asmaro v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al.," Court File No. VLC-S-S-234351, against the company and two of its officers in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the company between August 6, 2021 and May 10, 2023. The lawsuit alleges that the company's disclosures contained misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act of British Columbia, that certain officers authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages to the putative class. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation, incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production, distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada. CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Leonard Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- Canopy Growth Corporation 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 6, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action captioned "Leonard v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al.," Court File No. CV-23-00702281-00CP, against the company and eight of its directors and/or officers on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities who acquired Canopy securities between May 31, 2022 and June 22, 2023. Said putative class proceedings alleges that the company's disclosures contained misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act of Ontario, that certain directors and/or officers authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages to the putative class. Each proceeding seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, legal fees, and the costs of administering a plan of distribution of the recovery. Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation, incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production, distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada. CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Turpel Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ Canopy Growth Corporation 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 23, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action captioned "Turpel v. Canopy Growth Corporation, et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-043022, against the company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between May 31, 2022 and May 10, 2023. Said putative class proceedings alleged that the company violated U.S. federal securities laws by allegedly making false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the "BioSteel" business unit, the company's internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, and the company's business, operations, and prospects. Each proceeding seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, legal fees and costs, and other relief. Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded corporation, incorporated in Canada, with its head office located at 1 Hershey Drive, Smiths Falls, Ontario. It is into the production, distribution and sale of a diverse range of cannabis and cannabinoid-based products for both adult-use and medical purposes under a portfolio of distinct brands in Canada. CERENCE INC: Faces MFFPORT Securities Suit ------------------------------------------ Cerence 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 purported shareholder class action captioned as "City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc. et al." was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on February 25, 2022, naming the company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court's selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022. The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased the company's common stock between November 16, 2020 and February 4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding the company's operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the company's public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The company has filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed. Cerence Inc. is a global provider of AI-powered assistants and innovations for connected and autonomous vehicles. CERENCE INC: Faces Pena Suit Over BIPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Cerence 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 March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The case caption is "Pena v. Cerence Inc.," Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct., Cook County). Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), through Cerence's Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a Volkswagen with Cerence's Drive Platform technology. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction, BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent, BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members and BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. Cerence Inc. is a global provider of AI-powered assistants and innovations for connected and autonomous vehicles. CERMAQ CANADA: Salmon Price-Fixing Settlement Approval Set Nov. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Koskie Minsky on Oct. 18 disclosed that a settlement has been reached with the following defendants totalling CDN$5.25 million: -- Cermaq Canada Ltd., Cermaq Group AS, Cermaq Norway AS, and Cermaq US LLC; -- Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Grieg Seafood Sales North America Incorporated (formerly known as Ocean Quality North America Inc.), Grieg Seafood Sales Premium Brands, Inc. (formerly known as Ocean Quality Premium Brands Inc.), and Grieg Seafood Sales USA Inc. (formerly known as Ocean Quality USA Inc.); -- Lerøy Seafood AS, and Lerøy Seafood USA Inc.; Marine Harvest Atlantic Canada Inc., Mowi ASA, Mowi Canada West Inc., Mowi Ducktrap, LLC, and Mowi USA, LLC; and -- Nova Sea AS; SalMar ASA; and Sjór AS (formerly known as Ocean Quality AS). The settlement is subject to approval by the Federal Court. The application for approval of the settlement will be heard by the Federal Court on November 30, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. via video conference. Settlement Class Members have an opportunity to opt out of (exclude themselves from) the class action. Please review the Notice of Certification and Settlement Approval Hearing for more information. At the approval hearing, the Federal Court will be asked to approve a method of distributing the settlement funds to settlement class members. Please review the Proposed Distribution Protocol for more information. [GN] COEXIST GAMING: Burgess Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- MARLON BURGESS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COEXIST GAMING LLC d/b/a COEXIST GAMEHOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 159746/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Oct. 4, 2023) alleges the Defendant's willful violation of New York Labor Law by failing to pay the minimum wage; failing to pay for all hours worked; failing to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday; failing to provide an accurate wage statement with every wage payment; and unlawfully retaining gratuities. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a bartender from November 25, 2022 until his termination on August 26, 2023. Coexist Gaming LLC, d/b/a Coexist GameHouse, operates and manages a subscription-based gaming lifestyle company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Sara J. Isaacson, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com sara@lipskylowe.com COMPASS GROUP: Martin Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Martin, individually and for others similarly situated v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-12354-WGY (D. Mass., Oct. 12, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law ("MWHA"). The Day Rate Workers regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant did not pay its Day Rate Workers overtime. Instead, the Defendant paid the Day Rate Workers a flat amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they worked in a workweek (a "day rate"). the Defendant uniformly applied its day rate pay scheme to the Day Rate Workers regardless of any individualized factors. the Defendant's uniform day rate pay scheme violates the FLSA and the MWHA by depriving the Day Rate Workers of the overtime pay they are owed for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Day Rate Workers in Massachusetts. Compass Group is a family of companies that bills itself as the leading food services and support services company in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP LLP 585 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-536-1800 Facsimile: 617-536-1802 Email: pgordon@gordonllp.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com DO IT BEST: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Do it Best Commerce Company, LLC. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Do it Best Commerce Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08992 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Do it Best -- https://www.doitbest.com/ -- is the only US-based, member-owned comprehensive and fully integrated hardware, lumber and building materials.[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 DOCTORS MEDICAL: Beltran Suit Transferred to D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lori Beltran, Brittany Matus, Preston Meisner, Paul Blumberg, Mark Mehring, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Tenet Health, and Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01670 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 12, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-05250-DMR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto -- https://www.dmc-modesto.com/ -- is a full-service, comprehensive healthcare facility, dedicated to providing the finest medical care for the Stanislaus County community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022-4675 Phone: 446-4786 Fax: (212) 446-4900 Email: tfriedman@kirkland.com - and - Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth Katharine McCloskey, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 393-4622 Email: EMcCloskey@gibsondunn.com DONALD TRUMP: Averts ACN Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------- Kyle Cheney, Erica Orden and Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico, report that Trump notch a legal win on Oct. 17 in a lower-profile civil case where he is a defendant. A federal judge in Manhattan turned down a bid to certify a class action in a five-year-old suit against the former president for fraud over his role in marketing a business-services company, ACN. The ruling, from Obama appointee Lorna Schofield, is likely to sharply limit the amount of damages Trump may have to pay. The former president took to his social media site to hail the decision and to highlight the involvement in the case of a liberal attorney who also brought Carroll's suits. "We had a Total and Complete Victory against Far Left Lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, on her ridiculous ACN Class Action Suit, yet another Election Interference Case," Trump declared. [GN] DURHAM SCHOOL: Cardona Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jessica Cardona, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, L.P.; NATIONAL EXPRESS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2309217 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02112-JGB-SP. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action based on California Labor Code on the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission, on California's Unfair Competition Law, and on Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher A. Braham, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Phone: +1 310 277 4110 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730 Email: cbraham@mwe.com EARGO INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP disclosed that on August 31, 2023, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action alleging that a hearing aid company, its officers, directors and underwriters, violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Eargo, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 21-cv-08597 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2023). The Plaintiffs alleged that the Company misrepresented the Company's revenue and growth opportunities in its offering materials and allegedly downplayed an audit that allegedly led to a Department of Justice investigation in later SEC filings and public statements. We previously covered the Court's decision dismissing the first amended complaint (the "FAC") because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity and scienter. The Court held that plaintiffs' second amended complaint (the "SAC") "suffer[ed] from the same pitfalls identified in the Court's prior order" and dismissed the SAC without prejudice. The Company, which manufactures and sells hearing aids, launched an IPO in October 2020. Whereas hearing aids traditionally require customers to make in-person visits to hearing aid professionals who perform audiological tests, the Company developed a telehealth model that allegedly did not require testing for hearing aids to be prescribed. According to plaintiffs, the Company at first sold its products primarily to customers who paid out-of-pocket but then began servicing customers enrolled in a federal employee health benefits program (the "Federal Program") that provided health benefits through a third-party insurance carrier (the "Insurance Carrier"). According to plaintiffs, the Company's revenue more than doubled after soliciting Federal Program beneficiaries, and, by the end of 2020, insured customers were approximately 45% of the Company's total customer base. Between March 15 and April 7, 2021, the Company allegedly was notified that it was being audited by the Insurance Carrier and that the Company would be required to supply supporting documentation for all claims submitted, including diagnosis codes based on audiological testing. On May 12, 2021, the Company said that it was "currently subject to a routine audit." According to the SAC, the Company subsequently disclosed on August 12, 2021, that "claims submitted since March 1, 2021 have not been paid." The Company also disclosed that "[r]eimbursement claims submitted to [the Insurance Carrier] are also currently undergoing an audit, and … it is possible that they may seek recoupments of previous claims paid and deny any future claims." The Company warned that "an unfavorable outcome of the ongoing audits could have a material adverse effect on [its] future financial results[.]" On an August 12, 2021 earnings call, the Company's CFO allegedly stated that "[t]hese kind of audits are -- on claims are pretty common, particularly given the growth in our business." The Court held that plaintiffs "fail[ed] to plead scienter." First, although plaintiffs alleged in the SAC that two of the Company's executives sold stock during the class period, the Court noted that "these sales appear non-discretionary -- that is, they were made either to cover tax obligations or under a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan." The Court also noted that these same two executives increased their holdings in the Company's stock during the class period, which "further negate[d] any inference that they sought to avoid losing money before a price decline resulting from the insurance audits." Second, the Court rejected as insufficient purported statements from a former employee of the Company who stated that the Company's online hearing tool "should have never been used for insurance purposes." According to the Court, "it is not enough, for purpose of pleading a securities fraud claim, that different people have different interpretations of what [an] insurance policy covers." The Court further found that a September 2020 PowerPoint slide labeled "Insurance Risks" created by a senior director at the Company simply identified risks "generally applicable to any entity submitting insurance claims." Similarly, the Court held that alleged communications between the Company's chief legal officer and counsel for the Insurance Carrier concerning the Company's telecare model "simply show[ed] both entities' effort to align [the Company]'s telecare business model with the [Insurance Carrier's] policy requirements." Because plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter, the Court dismissed the Exchange Act claims. With respect to plaintiffs' Securities Act claims, the Court held that new allegations regarding an August 2020 email and the September 2020 PowerPoint slide did not establish that the Company's statements in its offering materials about its revenue and growth opportunities were false or misleading. According to plaintiffs, statements in the offering materials were false or misleading because the Company allegedly did not believe that they would receive reimbursement under the Federal Program. The Court held that an alleged August 2020 email from the Company's CFO allegedly asking another employee to "come ready to answer" questions about revenue recognition did not support this claim because it concerned accounting for hearing aids returned by customers at the end of a trial period rather than whether products were eligible for insurance reimbursements. With respect to the PowerPoint slide, the Court again noted that the "slide highlights only general risks with accepting insurance" and did "not establish that those risks, as of September 2020, already materialized insofar that it would render statements in the IPO Offering Documents materially false or misleading." The Court therefore dismissed plaintiffs' Securities Act claims. [GN] EMANUEL MEDICAL: Harrill Suit Transferred to D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Judith Harrill, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. EMANUEL MEDICAL CENTER, TENET HEALTH, and META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01672 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 12, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-05251-DMR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Emanuel Medical Center -- https://www.emanuelmedicalcenter.org/ -- is a 209-bed acute care hospital located in Turlock, Calif.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN 21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gillian Hannah Clow, Esq. Rachel Elizabeth King Lowe, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-1000 Fax: (213) 576-1100 Email: gillian.clow@alston.com rachel.lowe@alston.com EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES: S/M Merger Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- S/M MERGER ARBITRAGE, L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMISPHERE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MARK H. RACHESKY, MICHAEL WEISER, TIMOTHY ROTHWELL, TIMOTHY MCINERNEY and HOWARD DRAFT, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-20898 (D.N.J., Oct. 4, 2023) is a class action brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a class consisting of the Plaintiff and other investors that sold shares of the publicly traded common stock of Emisphere Technologies from November 6, 2020, the announcement date of the merger between Emisphere and Novo Nordisk A/S through the close of the merger on December 8, 2020, including investors who sold their shares of Emisphere common stock into the merger on December 8, 2020, and were damaged as a result of Defendants' alleged wrongdoing. This action arises from the Defendants' fraudulent efforts to artificially depress the price of Emisphere's common stock during the Class Period in order to ensure that the $1.8 billion merger with Novo Nordisk would be consummated and Defendant Rachesky, together with the other Director Defendants, and would receive lucrative payouts resulting from the transaction. To implement that scheme, Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts in the proxy and other public statements concerning the merger that served to deflate Emisphere's stock price and justify the inadequate per share consideration offered to Company shareholders under the merger, says the suit. Specifically, Defendants characterized the merger as being "fair to and in the best interests of" Company shareholders based on discounted financial projections that, among other things (i) assumed a decrease in oral medication Rybelsus-related royalty payments from Novo to Emisphere beginning in 2027, (ii) wholly ignored the lucrative impact of the intellectual property dispute between Novo and Emisphere that was integral to the initial merger negotiations and implicated significant royalty payments to the Company, and (iii) discounted the possibility of success for Food and Drug Administration approval of the expanded use of Rybelsus to treat obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, the suit contends. Emisphere Technologies, Inc. is a pharmaceutical and drug delivery company that develops proprietary technologies for oral formulations of therapeutic agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Catherine B. Derenze, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com cderenze@litedepalma.com - and - Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Jonathan H. Beemer, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com rcappucci@entwistle-law.com jbeemer@entwistle-law.com EXP REALTY: Holton Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Holton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff; InsideRE, Petitioner v. Exp Realty, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-mc-00718-TC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.. eXp Realty -- https://exprealty.com/ -- The Real Estate Cloud Brokerage, is the fastest-growing, global residential real estate company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 628-5793 Fax: (954) 507-9974 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. 1971 SW 179th Avenue Miramar, FL 33029 Phone: (954) 319-7519 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com The Petitioner is represented by: J. Derek Kearl, Esq. Sarah Anne Hafen, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 222 S. Main St., Ste. 2200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 799-5800 Email: jdkearl@hollandhart.com sahafen@hollandhart.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq. Kathleen D. Dackiewicz, Esq. Sara F. Holladay, Esq. 50 N. Laura St., Ste. 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: (904) 798-3224 FGNA CORP: Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal Ongoing in Del. Ch. ---------------------------------------------------------------- OppFi 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 20, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0737) on behalf of a purported class of company stockholders naming certain of FGNA's former directors and officers and its controlling stockholder, FG New America Investors, LLC as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of FGNA stemming from FGNA's merger with OppFi-LLC and that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption rights and attorneys' fees. Neither the company nor any of the its current officers or directors are parties to the lawsuit. OppFi Inc., formerly FG New America Acquisition Corp. (FGNA), collectively with its subsidiaries, is a mission-driven fintech platform that provided access to credit with digital specialty finance products. FLATIRON WEST: Gaefcke Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as James Gaefcke, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FLATIRON WEST, INC. dba FLATIRON, INC., a Delaware Corporation; FLATIRON CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Delaware Corporation; DRAGADOS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; SUKUT CONSTRUCTION INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BCV-23-103066 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00885. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 10 purported causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code; Recovery of Reporting Time Pay Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code; Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code §226.7; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor Code § 2802; Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code and Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 203; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq. Cindy Kaoud, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com ckaoud@fisherphillips.com FORD MOTOR: Skole Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Matthew Skole, Marc Chambers, David Diersen, Peter Adduci, Chris Meredith, and Terry Abbate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-04130 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12335-FDS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability for Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Miller, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-589-6280 Facsimile: 312-275-8174 Email: mrm@wallacemiller.com - and - Mitchell Breit, Esq. Leland H. Belew, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (630) 796-0903 Email: mbreit@milberg.com tlitke@milberg.com - and - John R. Fabry, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305 Round Rock, Texas 78664 Phone: 512-671-7277 Facsimile: 512-238-0275 Email: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com - and - Sidney F. Robert, Esq. BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES 300 Fannin, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713-225-1682 Facsimile: 713-225-1785 Email: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com FRANCESCA'S ACQUISITION: Doherty Files Suit in S.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Francesca's Acquisition, LLC. The case is styled as Taylor Doherty, Alessandra Jimenez, Kayla Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Francesca's Acquisition, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-03881 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 12, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Francesca's Acquisition LLC -- https://francescas.com/ -- is a specialty retailer operating more than 450 stores in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com FURHAVEN PET: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furhaven Pet Products, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Furhaven Pet Products, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08886 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FurHaven -- https://furhaven.com/ -- is a brand renowned for high-quality and innovative pet products.[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 GAMMABILLING INC: Booe Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Amanda Booe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GAMMABILLING INC., Case No. 23STCV20795 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-08568. The Plaintiff alleges that GammaBilling violated California and Illinois law by, among other things, allegedly charging consumers for subscriptions without disclosing the subscription terms. GammaBilling denies liability, denies that plaintiff or any punitive class member suffered any damages by reason of any allegation in the complaint, and denies that any class can or should be certified.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ari N. Rothman, Esq. Allison C. Nelson, Esq. Abigail C. Zeimis, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 Email: anrothman@venable.com acnelson@venable.com aczeimis@venable.com GANAHL LUMBER: Novela Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ VERONICA NOVELA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GANAHL LUMBER COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1-99, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV24128 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 4, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unlawful retaliation; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to pay all wages due, including overtime; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to indemnify employee; and engagement in unfair competition law in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in December 2018. Around November 2022, the Defendants accused Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees of taking extra meal breaks, which is when Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees notified Defendants that their manager had implemented the unlawful meal break policy. The Plaintiff's manager began retaliating against Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for reporting the unlawful meal break policy, says the suit. Ganahl Lumber Company operates as home products stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Romero, Esq. Robert S. Myong, Esq. ROMERO LAW, APC 251 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 930 Pasadena, CA 91101-4873 Telephone: (626) 396-9900 Facsimile: (626) 396-9990 E-mail: private@romerolaw.com GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Kinnally Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS J. KINNALLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC, LARRY LEI WU, KWOK HEI DAVID LAU, XIN WAN, FRANK LIN, XING HUANG, and AEGIS CAPITAL CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08381 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2023) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired GigaCloud: (a) Class A ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's August 2022 initial public offering; and/or (b) securities between August 18, 2022 and September 27, 2023, inclusive. The Plaintiff is pursuing claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 19, 2022, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 3,381,000 Class A ordinary shares at $12.25 per share. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $34.2 million from the IPO. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used for general corporate purposes, including working capital, operating expenses, and capital expenditures. In the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, asserts the complaint. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's business is a fraction of what it publicly claims, as evidenced by staffing and activity levels at its warehouses; (2) that the Company overstated its last-mile operations; (3) that the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (4) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were overstated; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, the complaint adds. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. GigaCloud Technology Inc. is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, offers an end-to-end ecommerce platform for global trade services of heavy and large products, primarily furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit in CA Court ------------------------------------------------------------- GoodRx Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that it is currently facing a consolidated consumer class action that claims violations of data protection clauses. between February 2, 2023, and March 30, 2023, five individual plaintiffs filed five separate putative class actions lawsuits against GoodRx Holdings, Inc., Google, Meta, and Criteo, alleging generally that the company has not adequately protected consumer privacy and that the company communicated consumer information to third parties, including the three co-defendants. Four of the plaintiffs allege California common law intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under California's Medical Information Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. One of these four plaintiffs additionally brings a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The fifth plaintiff brings claims for common-law unjust enrichment and violations of New York's General Business Law. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking various forms of monetary damages (such as statutory damages, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and disgorgement of profits) as well as injunctive relief. Four of these cases were originally filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California (Cases No. 3:23-cv-00501; 3:23-cv-00744; 3:23-cv-00940; and 4:23-cv-01293). One case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv-00943); however, that case was voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:23-cv-01508). These five matters have been consolidated and assigned to U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the Northern District of California. The court also set a briefing schedule for filing a single consolidated complaint as well as motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration have been completed on August 24, 2023 and heard on September 7, 2023. In addition, the court referred the parties to mediation, which has not been scheduled or discussed further yet at this time. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GoodRx Intermediate Holdings, LLC, which itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. It operates a price comparison platform that provides consumers with curated, geographically relevant prescription pricing, and provides access to negotiated prices through our codes that can be used to save money on prescriptions across the United States. GOSHEN HOSPITAL: Ind. High Court Takes Up Class Action Question --------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Fouts, writing for The Elkhart Truth, reports that the Indiana Supreme Court has taken up the question of class-action determination in joint lawsuits against Goshen Hospital. The court granted transfer of the lawsuit brought on by patients who were told by the hospital that they could have been exposed to infectious diseases during surgery in 2019. Goshen Hospital told patients who had surgery between April and September of that year that a step was missed in the process for sterilizing certain surgical instruments, which may have exposed them to hepatitis C, hepatitis B and HIV. [GN] GRUMA CORPORATION: Zamora Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yesica Becerra Zamora, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRUMA CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation; ESTEPHANIE PERALES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV039868 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05256. The Complaint, styled as a class action, asserts claims for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; failure to pay interest on deposits; violation of labor code; unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dan M. Forman, Esq. Wanja S. Guy, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 612-6300 Email: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com wguy@cdflaborlaw.com HABERFELDE FORD: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haberfelde Ford. The case is styled as Ernie Alvarez, Henry G. Glitz, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HABERFELDE FORD, Case No. BCV-23-103436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 12, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Haberfelde Ford, doing business as Jim Burke, provides automotive services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com HARTFORD INSURANCE: Trent Files Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast. The case is styled as Stacey Trent, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast, Case No. 2:23-cv-02105-SMB (D. Ariz., Oct. 10, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Declaratory Judgment. Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast -- https://www.thehartford.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, home, and business insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Tory Beardsley, Esq. John Michael DeStefano, III, Esq. Robert B. Carey, ESQ. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP - PHOENIX 11 W Jefferson St., Ste. 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 840-5900 Email: toryb@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com rob@hbsslaw.com - and - Evan S. Goldstein, Esq. GOLDSTEIN WOODS & ALAGHA 706 E Bell Rd., Ste. 200 Phoenix, AZ 85022 Phone: (602) 569-8200 Fax: (602) 569-8201 Email: egoldstein@gwalawfirm.com - and - Kent Jeffrey Hammond, Esq. RUDOLPH & HAMMOND LLC 8686 E San Alberto, Ste. 200 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Phone: (480) 951-9700 Fax: (480) 951-1185 Email: kent@rudolphhammond.com HOME DEPOT: Castellanos Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Home Depot, Inc. The case is styled as Judy Castellanos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04665-AT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Home Depot, Inc. -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- often simply referred to as Home Depot, is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Jason R. Doss, Esq. THE DOSS FIRM, LLC 1827 Powers Ferry Road SE Building 23, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Phone: (770) 578-1314 Email: jasondoss@dossfirm.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 INSPIRATO INC: Koch Files Suit Over SEC Filing ---------------------------------------------- Inspirato Incorporated 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 February 16, 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Colorado captioned "Keith Koch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Inspirato Incorporated, Brent Handler, and R. Webster Neighbor." The complaint alleges violations the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint generally alleges that certain of the company's prior public statements about its results of operations and financial condition were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the restatement of the company's consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022 Inspirato Incorporated and its subsidiaries is a subscription-based luxury travel company that provides exclusive access to branded luxury vacation homes, accommodations at five-star hotel and resort partners, and custom travel experiences. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this alert to shareholders of Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation (NasdaqGS: IART), if they purchased the Company's shares between March 11, 2019 and May 22, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until November 13, 2023 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-iart/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Kuznicki Law PLLC Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. 445 Central Avenue, Suite 344 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 https://kclasslaw.com [GN] J.B. WHOLESALE: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Munoz, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.B. WHOLESALE ROOFING AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., a California Corporation; SRS DISTRIBUTION INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 23STCV20743 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 12, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-08625. The Complaint alleges causes of action for minimum wage violations; failure to pay all overtime wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; wage statement violations; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Samuel S. Sadeghi, Esq. Mayra Negrete, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com sam.sadeghi@morganlewis.com mayra.negrete@morganlewis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bader Files Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al. The case is styled as John Jeffrey Bader, Brian Lloyd Fireng, Carrie Diane Huff, Joseph Samuel Sorge, Joshua Edward Sorge, Christine Ann Waters, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Kenvue Incorporated, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Procter & Gamble, Case No. 2:23-cv-02108-MTM (D. Ariz., Oct. 11, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and consumer packaged goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Dean Curtis, II, Esq. BURCH & CRACCHIOLO PA 1850 N Central Ave., Ste. 1700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 234-8760 Email: jcurtis@bcattorneys.com KATAPULT HOLDINGS: McIntosh Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NY Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katapult Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that a putative class action lawsuit filed on August 27, 2021, against Katapult Holdings, Inc., two officers of FinServ Acquisition Corp., one of whom is a current company director, and two officers of Legacy Katapult, both of whom are current company officers, is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit is captioned "McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., et al." On May 26, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who, on July 29, 2022, filed an amended complaint in the action. The amended complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons and entities that (a) beneficially owned and/or held FinServ common stock as of the close of business on May 11, 2021 and were eligible to vote at FinServ's June 7, 2021 special meeting; or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired Katapult securities between June 15, 2021 and August 9, 2021, inclusive. The amended complaint alleges that certain defendants misled plaintiffs by failing to disclose that prime lenders could and would reach down the credit waterfall and take Katapult's customers. The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants misled the class by providing materially false and misleading financial guidance. The company and the other defendants filed amended complaints on November 4, 2022. On January 9, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss. In March 2023, the Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs and the company replied in April 2023. Katapult Holdings, Inc. is an e-commerce focused financial technology company offering e-commerce point-of-sale lease-purchase options for non-prime US consumers. KENOSHA COUNTY, WI: Ruderman Sues Over Forced Labor Provisions -------------------------------------------------------------- Aleksey Ruderman, Arturo Saldivar, and Chris Pocknell on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KENOSHA COUNTY, KENOSHA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DAVID G. BETH, ROBERT HALLISY, LARRY APKER, MARC LEVIN, JUSTIN MILLER, and BILL BETH, Case No. 2:23-cv-01336-BHL (E.D. Wis., Oct. 10, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendants' violations of the forced labor provisions in the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (the "TVPA") and related state law. The TVPA "broadly prohibits coercive labor practices" and "was designed to encompass a wide range of coercive conduct," including "'cases in which persons are held in a condition of servitude through nonviolent coercion,' which might 'have the same purpose and effect' of physical or legal coercion.'" The Plaintiffs were civilly detained immigrants who were subjected to forced labor while detained at the Kenosha County Detention Center (referred to herein as the "Kenosha County Jail" or "Jail") in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Specifically, Plaintiffs were forced to perform various janitorial services (hereinafter "janitorial labor") without compensation and against their will. The Kenosha County Jail unlawfully forced civil immigrant detainees to perform janitorial labor. The civilly detained immigrants received no compensation whatsoever for performing janitorial labor, which was mandatory. When immigrants, including Plaintiffs, refused to perform this labor, they were either punished or threatened with the punishment of being put on lockdown in their cell or being sent to solitary confinement, also known as disciplinary segregation, or more colloquially as the "hole." Solitary confinement causes severe mental pain and suffering and can even bring on new psychiatric syndromes due to the effects of isolation. The serious harms of solitary confinement can often last after a detainee is released into the general population or the outside world. The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and all current and former civil immigration detainees who were forced to perform labor while being held in the Kenosha County Jail, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were civil immigration detainees at the Kenosha County Jail. Kenosha County was a public entity operating within the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth N. Mazur, Esq. Margaret E. Truesdale, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 70 W. Madison St., Ste. 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 580-0100 Email: emazur@hsplegal.com mtruesdale@hsplegal.com - and - Jay Kumar, Esq. JAY KUMAR LAW 73 W. Monroe St., #100 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 767-7903 Email: Jay@JayKumarLaw.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. Adam Pollock, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 337-5361 Email: Rafi@PollockCohen.com Adam@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob S. Briskman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JACOB S. BRISKMAN 2054 N. California Ave Chicago, IL 60647 Phone: (312) 945-6207 Email: Jacob.Briskman@gmail.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CPAP Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a federal judge has granted preliminary approval to a $479 million Philips CPAP class action lawsuit settlement agreement, while the parties continue to engage in negotiations to resolve thousands of individual claims brought by those who were injured by the recalled sleep apnea treatment devices. The class action claim and personal injury lawsuits both stem from a Philips CPAP recall issued in 2021, which impacted millions of the machines that contained a defective polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam. Although the foam was intended to help reduce noise and vibrations, it has since been discovered that the foam tends to break down over time, releasing toxic particles and gases which were inhaled by millions of consumers. At the time of the recall, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned consumers to immediately stop using their Philips CPAP devices due to the health risks. As a result, a Philips CPAP class action lawsuit was pursued on behalf of all owners of recalled machines, seeking economic damages and medical monitoring. In addition, tens of thousands of individual Philips CPAP personal injury lawsuits have been filed by individuals who claim they have been diagnosed with cancer, lung damage, respiratory injuries or other health conditions. All Philips CPAP lawsuits, both class action and individual claims, have been centralized before Senior U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti in the Western District of Pennsylvania, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Philips CPAP Class Action Settlement Preliminary Approval In September, Philips announced it would pay at least $445 million in a CPAP recall settlement to individuals who bought, rented or leased one of the impacted devices, and another $34 million to health insurance companies and others who paid to reimburse users to replace the machines. The settlement agreement seeks to resolve all economic claims against the manufacturer, and automatically include about 1.3 million users who have returned devices to Philips through its recall program without the need to submit a claim. In a court order (PDF) issued on October 10, Judge Conti granted preliminary approval to the agreement, indicating that both parties appeared to negotiate in good faith to resolve the economic loss claims. "The Court hereby finds that the Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness meriting possible final approval and has key indicia of fairness, including that (1) the Parties have reached the Settlement after investigating the strengths and weaknesses of the Economic Loss Claims and the defenses thereto, (2) the extensive settlement negotiations were arm's-length and consisted of multiple mediation sessions overseen by the Settlement Mediator, (3) there is no evidence of collusion in reaching this Settlement, and (4) the proponents of the Settlement are experienced in similar litigation," Judge Conti wrote. Qualified Philips CPAP class action settlement participants will receive $100 for each device they returned to Philips due to the recall, and another $50 to $1,500 in compensation, depending on the type of device the plaintiffs used. Plaintiffs who disagree with the settlement agreement will be given a chance to present their arguments at a Final Fairness Hearing on April 11, 2024, before final approval is granted. Plaintiffs have until February 7 to notify the Court that they intend to opt-out or object to the settlement agreement. Individual Philips CPAP Personal Injury Lawsuits Remain Unresolved While the parties appear on track to resolve the class action portion of the litigation, tens of thousands of individuals still have pending lawsuits indicating they suffered actual physical injuries due to their use of the recalled Philips CPAP devices. On Oct. 17, Judge Conti is holding a status conference to receive updates on the ongoing individual litigation. According to a joint proposed agenda (PDF) for the hearing, the parties will discuss the status of discovery proceedings, updates on state court litigation and the case census registry, and will receive an update on the FDA's recent demands for more testing of recalled Philips CPAP devices. The Court will also receive an update on the continuing negotiations seeking to resolve the personal injury claims. Philips executives have already indicated publicly that they hope to reach a settlement agreement that resolves all cases. In April, Philips CEO Roy Jakobs announced that the company planned to settle the class action litigation this year, and hoped to resolve the individual injury claims sometime in 2024. It is expected that the settlement to resolve the Philips CPAP personal injury lawsuits will far eclipse the economic loss settlement amount. However, if no agreement is reached to resolve a large majority of the individual claims, Judge Conti has also directed the parties to establish a Philips CPAP lawsuit bellwether process, where small groups of representative claims will be prepared for early trial dates if a global settlement is not reached. [GN] KROTO INC: Faces Class Action Over Price Comparisons ---------------------------------------------------- Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a proposed class action says iCanvas is deceiving customers with price comparisons. Tal Nelkin, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, filed a complaint Oct. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Kroto Inc., doing buisness as iCanvas, and iCanvas Art, alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment and other claims. Nelkin alleges in his class action that online retailer of wall art and home decor, iCanvas and iCanvas Art, misleads consumers with unlawful pricing, sales and discounting practices on is website. Specifically, Nelkin claims the defendant advertises fake and inflated "comparison reference prices" in order to deceive customers into believing the prices are deeply discounted and bargains. He further alleges that the products on the defendants' websites can not be discounted and that the reference prices on the websites are fake. Nelkin claims the defendants also advertise sales as being limited in duration when the sale is perpetual. Nelkin and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury and all other just relief. They are represented by Alexander Wolf of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC in Beverly Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 2:23-CV-08241 [GN] LEMOYNE-OWEN COLLEGE: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lemoyne-Owen College. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Lemoyne-Owen College, Case No. 1:23-cv-08904 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. LeMoyne–Owen College -- http://www.loc.edu/-- is a private historically black college affiliated with the United Church of Christ and located in Memphis, Tennessee.[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 LIZARD THICKET: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lizard Thicket, LLC. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lizard Thicket, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08983-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lizard Thicket -- https://www.shoplizardthicket.com/ -- is a boutique for unique and stylish dresses, tops, accessories, shoes, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LYFT INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over IPO Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- Lyft, 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 a consolidated state action has been stayed by the court in light of a certified class action proceeding in federal court. Beginning in April 2019, multiple putative class actions and derivative actions have been filed in state and federal courts against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters named in the registration statement relating to the company's initial public offering (IPO) alleging violation of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in connection with the IPO. The putative class actions were consolidated in California state court and the other in federal court. On July 1, 2020, the California state court sustained in part and overruled in part the company's demurrer to the consolidated complaint. The company filed its answer to this consolidated complaint on August 3, 2020. On February 26, 2021, the California state court struck additional allegations from the consolidated complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 17, 2021. The company filed its demurrer and motion to strike the amended claim on April 13, 2021, and on July 16, 2021, the California state court overruled the demurrer but struck additional allegations from the consolidated complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The state court plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify a class action on June 24, 2021, and on January 25, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. Lyft, Inc. operates multimodal transportation networks in the United States and Canada that offer access to a variety of transportation options through its platform and mobile-based applications. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces CGIG Securities Suit -------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt PLC 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 7, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer Sigurdur Olafsson, its Chief Financial Officer Bryan Reasons, and the Chairman of the Board, Paul Bisaro, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Jersey, captioned "Continental General Insurance Company and Percy Rockdale, LLC v. Mallinckrodt PLC et al.," No. 23-cv-03662. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between June 17, 2022 and June 14, 2023. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to the company's business, operations, and prospects, including its financial strength, its ability to timely make certain payments related to Mallinckrodt's settlement of opioid-related litigation and the risk of additional filings for bankruptcy protection. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. Mallinckrodt PLC is a global business of multiple wholly owned subsidiaries that develop, manufacture, market and distribute specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies. Areas of focus include autoimmune and rare diseases in specialty areas like neurology, rheumatology, hepatology, nephrology, pulmonology, ophthalmology and oncology; immunotherapy and neonatal respiratory critical care therapies; analgesics; cultured skin substitutes and gastrointestinal products. MCDONALD'S AUSTRALIA: Court Issues Ruling on Settlement CFO Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cathryn Prowse, Michael Russell, Adrian Konstantinidis, Amaya Hettige and Grace McInerney of Colin Biggers & Paisley, disclosed that on October 12, 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia delivered judgment in Elliott-Carde v McDonald's Australia Limited [2023] FCAFC 162 clarifying a controversy that has vexed litigation funders and the class action practitioners in relation to the power of the Court to make a settlement common fund order (CFO). The separate, but unanimous judgments of Beach, Lee and Colvin JJ, confirmed the Court has power under section 33V(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) to make orders for settlement CFOs. Common fund orders and their tortuous journey A CFO is an order unique to Australian class action proceedings. It permits the deduction of expenses, (including litigation funding expenses) from any settlement or judgment amount from an otherwise entitlement of group members, regardless of whether they have entered into an agreement with a litigation funder. Whether the Court has the power to make a CFO under the FCA Act has been a subject of substantive debate amongst class action practitioners over recent years. CFO's were first endorsed by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Money Max Int Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance Group Ltd (2016) 245 FCR 191. Following that decision, it became commonplace for CFOs to be made at the early stages of class action proceedings. The practice evolved as a means to provide equitable sharing of the expense of litigation (to avoid the problem of 'free-riders'), avoid the expensive task of book building, and identify the funding commission to facilitate settlement discussions. At that time, CFOs were generally made pursuant to the 'gap filling' provision of section 33ZF of FCA Act, which permits the Court to make any order it "thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding". That all changed following the majority decision of the High Court in BMW v Brewster (2019) 269 CLR 574. In Brewster, the Court amongst other things held that section 33ZF (or equivalent state provisions): Is a power only to be exercised in the context of how an action should proceed in order to do justice; and Can be used to support any interlocutory procedural order necessary to ensure that the pleaded issues are resolved justly between the parties or "to bring the matter to a fair hearing on a just basis." As a result, the Court held that it did not have power under section 33ZF to make a CFO at an early stage of a class action. In short, making a CFO for the dominant purpose of addressing uncertainties on the part of litigation funders as to the financial viability of funding such proceedings was found to be impermissible. In Cantor v Audi Australia Pty Limited (No 5) [2020] FCA 637, Foster J observed (without finally deciding) that the true import of Brewster was there was no power to make a CFO under either section 33ZF or section 33V. In contrast to the approach taken by Foster J, in Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 183, the Full Court of the Federal Court, Lee J (with whom Moshinsky and Middleton JJ agreed) observed that the majority decision of the High Court in Brewster was limited to the Court's powers under section 33ZF to make a CFO at an early stage of the proceedings. It did not concern any exercise of power under section 33V(2). Judges continued to make CFOs in class action proceedings in the Federal Court. Over recent years, since the decision in Davaria, the Courts have continued to make CFO's pursuant to section 33V(2) (or its cognate provisions in state jurisdictions) in at least 18 cases. However, the validity of CFOs was again thrown into doubt following the judgment of O'Callaghan J in Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd (No 13) [2023] FCA 84. In that case, his Honour held that the reasoning of the majority in Brewster "points clearly enough to the conclusion that there is similarly no power to make a common fund order upon settlement under s 33V(2)." The McDonald's Case Recent decisions in the Federal Court have done little to resolve the controversy surrounding whether the Court has the power to make a CFO. However, the decision of the Full Federal Court in Elliott-Carde may now, subject to any appeals that might occur, provide long-awaited clarity. The question has resurfaced in a number of proceedings brought by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA) and the Retail and Fast Food Workers' United Union (RAFFWU). These two unions, who both represent workers in the fast food retail space, have brought competing actions against McDonald's, arguing that McDonalds' employees were not provided with appropriate break entitlements. In a bid to throw out the class action brought by RAFFWU, the SDA filed an interlocutory application that questioned the Court's ability to make settlement CFOs. This question was then referred to the Full Court of the Federal Court for determination. In a unanimous decision, with Beach, Lee and Colvin JJ providing separate but overall consistent reasoning, the following matters emerge from the Full Court's judgment: The Court rejected the submission that Brewster precluded the making of settlement CFOs pursuant to section 33V of the FCA Act. Rather, their Honours held that Brewster was not concerned with section 33V(2) or settlement CFOs. Brewster was concerned with section 33ZF and the power to make a CFO at an early stage of the proceeding. In this case, section 33V speaks to the other end of the time spectrum where "the action is for all practical purposes over and no such in future uncertainties or financial viability of funding questions are in play"; Section 33V(2) is a settlement specific power, which is substantively different from the ambulatory and 'gap-filling' power in section 33ZF; Section 23 of the FCA Act which gives the Court the power to make orders it thinks appropriate could be invoked as a source of power for making a settlement CFO (and possibly an early CFO); and Lee J rejected submissions by the court-appointed contradictor that making a settlement CFO would involve the creation of new rights and obligations for which the FCA Act does not provide. Rather, the conferral of a power on a court to create or alter rights does not place those powers outside of the scope of judicial power. The Full Court's decision resolves lingering uncertainty about whether the Court can make a common fund order on settlement or judgment of a class action. The judgment is significant for the class action and (particularly litigation funding) industry as it is likely to provide greater certainty for funders and plaintiff firms about the likely remuneration that will be recovered as part of any settlement in class action proceedings. The Next Frontier - Solicitors' CFOs Observations made by Lee J in Elliott-Carde are also likely to reinvigorate debate about whether other third parties -- particularly solicitors -- can receive a percentage recovery of any settlement or judgment, akin to a contingency fee arrangement. In the context of discussing payments to third parties (including funders) under Settlement CFOs, Lee J observed there are circumstances where it could "be a just order to pay a solicitor (who has taken the necessary risks to get in the settlement fund) a sum in addition to legal costs payable pursuant to a retained". In a separate judgment delivered on the same day in Greentree v Jaguar Land Rover Australia Pty Ltd (Carriage Application) [2023] FCA 1209 which determined a carriage dispute between two competing class actions, Lee J also expressed the view that: There is a distinction between the prohibition on solicitors from entering into contingency fee arrangements and the payment of a contingency fee out of any settlement proceeds in a class action pursuant to an order of the Court; The distribution of monies paid under a settlement or judgment to a third-party who has aced to facilitate that outcome, and to whom a payment is 'just', does not need to be a commercial litigation funder. This is said to be consistent with the notion that a person who benefits from another's efforts in producing a fund is obliged to provide appropriate value in return; and As a matter of power, the class action regime in Part IVA of the FCA Act does not preclude the possibility of a settlement CFO which incorporates the payment of a fee to solicitors; In all Australian jurisdictions other than Victoria, contingency fee arrangements for solicitors are expressly prohibited by legislation. Contingency fee arrangements for class actions (referred to as "Group Costs Orders') were introduced in Victoria in July 2020. Since that time, there has been a significant increase in the number of class action filings in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Lee J's endorsement of a Solicitors' CFO seemingly opens the door to law firms seeking to recover a contingency fee payment in class action proceeding in other jurisdictions. Unlike the Victorian regime, there is no legislative entitlement giving rise to a Solicitors' CFO. If permitted, we are likely to see a further decrease in the proportion of cases funded through traditional litigation funding models and, perhaps, a rebalancing of class action filings away from Victoria. The first case for approval of Solicitors' CFOs is likely to be delivered in the Blue Sky class action (in which Lee J is currently the docket Judge) - R&B Investments Pty Ltd As Trustee For The R&B Pension Fund And David Furniss V Blue Sky Alternative Investments Limited (Proceedings NSD665 of 2022). In that case, the plaintiffs' solicitors have previously outlined their intention to seek such an order and will no doubt be encouraged by the Court's early indications of likely support. [GN] MERCYHURST UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercyhurst University. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Mercyhurst University, Case No. 1:23-cv-09006 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mercyhurst University -- https://www.mercyhurst.edu/ -- is a private Roman Catholic university in Erie, Pennsylvania.[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 MERRILL GARDENS: Walls Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Laquisha Monique Walls, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERRILL GARDENS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV042636 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05188. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following nine causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wages Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Diane Marie O'malley, Esq. Samantha A. Botros, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 Email: domalley@hansonbridgett.com SBotros@hansonbridgett.com MISSION ESSENTIAL: Sued Over Failure to Protect Information ----------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03365-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 11, 2023), is brought as a result of the Defendant's failure to adequately protect employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach in violation of the state law and harmed an unknown number of its former and current employees. In September 2022, MEG, a government contractor providing valuable and sensitive translation services and solutions to global threats, terrorism, and risks to American security, lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive private information stored on the computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). The number of total breach victims is unknown, but on information and belief, the Data Breach has impacted at least thousands of former and current employees. MEG has disclosed that it was informed by federal law enforcement authorities about the Data Breach in September 2022. Due to MEG's intentionally obfuscating language, little is known about how and when cybercriminals gained unfettered access to Defendant's network. On April 19, 2023, following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals potentially gained unauthorized access to former and current employees' personally identifiable information ("PII"). However, on information and belief, Defendant's cyber and data security systems and measures were so inadequate that Defendant was unable to identify when and how the Data Breach identified by federal law enforcement authorities occurred. On July 20, 2023, MEG finally notified Class Members about the widespread Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). Defendant waited an appalling ten months before informing Class Members, even though Plaintiff and the Class had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to not only suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, but also imminent threat of physical danger by hostile government actors and terrorists due to the geopolitically sensitive work Plaintiff and Class Members performed. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its employees vulnerable to imminent physical danger, without any warnings about how the Data Breach renders them sitting ducks for identification, capture and interrogation by terrorists and hostile government actors, particularly if they leave American soil. The Defendant's failures also made its employees vulnerable to identity theft, without any warnings to Plaintiff and the Class to monitor their financial accounts and credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former MEG employee and a Data Breach victim. MEG prides itself as "an agile, trusted partner, providing translators and interpreters to the Defense and Intelligence communities, friendly foreign governments, and select private sector segments."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com MOLSON COORS: West Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling ---------------------------------------------------------- Tranise West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY USA, LLC, Case 1:23-cv-07547 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling of its "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" under its Vizzy brand ("Product"). The Product's labeling as "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" is false and misleading for multiple reasons. First, purchasers expect a drink labeled as a mimosa hard seltzer to contain mimosa ingredients like orange juice and champagne. Though the mimosa hard seltzer contains orange juice, it lacks the unique sparkling wine known as champagne. Since a mimosa is a simple drink without complicated ingredients, the combination of champagne and orange juice can be sold in a canned, ready-to-drink ("RTD") format. However, the fine print ingredient list reveals the only bubbly liquid it contains is not champagne but "Sparkling Water." Even if purchasers find and read the ingredients, they will be misled because it lists only "Alcohol" instead of truthfully identifying its source as not from champagne, but sugar or another fermentable source, such as "Alcohol (from fermented sugar)." Second, "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" does not tell purchasers they are buying a malt beverage, equivalent to a flavored beer, instead of a drink containing champagne. Third, "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" is not the name of the product as known to the trade. Fourth, to the extent the Product can be described as a malt beverage specialty product which does not fall under pre-existing designations such that "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" is its distinctive or fanciful name, it lacks a statement of composition. That "hard seltzer" preceded by "mimosa" would not meet these requirements has been confirmed by the TTB, as failing to provide truthful labeling to consumers. Fifth, the statement of composition of "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" is required to, but fails, to disclose the addition of the artificial sweetener of stevia, revealed in the fine print on the ingredient list. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no less than approximately $17.99 for a 12 pack of 12 oz cans, and $3.49 for one 24 oz can, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product. The Defendant "Mimosa Hard Seltzer" under its Vizzy brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - James Chung, Esq. CHUNG LAW, P.C. 43-22 216th Street Bayside, NY 11361 Phone: (718) 461-8808 Email: jchung_77@msn.com MONARK GOLF SUPPLY: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monark Golf Supply, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Monark Golf Supply, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08978 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Monark Golf -- https://www.monarkgolf.com/ -- is a full-time distributor of golf club components, golf equipment, golf club drivers & golf clubs.[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 NATIONAL WESTERN: Discloses Payment of Settlement in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- National Western Life Group, 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 ultimate payments due under the settlement terms over a data breach were paid in 2022. The company reported that it experienced a data event in which an intruder accessed and exfiltrated certain data from the company's network as mentioned in two proposed class actions filed against National Western namely "Douglas Dyrssen Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. National Western Life Insurance Company and National Western Life Group, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California," filed on March 8, 2021. The parties subsequently agreed to consolidate into a single proposed class action seeking an undetermined amount of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, declaratory and other equitable relief, and enjoinment. National Western filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 16, 2021. On July 26, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay Pending Mediation, which the court denied. On September 15, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part National Western's Motion to Dismiss. At a mediation held on October 12, 2021, the parties agreed on preliminary terms to settle the litigation. The parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement and Motion to Stay Deadlines with the court on October 20, 2021. The company accrued $4.4 million for this matter at December 31, 2021. The court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement on January 19, 2022 and issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on June 16, 2022. National Western Life Group, Inc. is an insurance company based in Austin, Texas. NAVY FEDERAL: Stephenson Sues Over Failing to Conduct Investigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Stephenson, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:23-cv-01851-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2023), is brought concerns the Defendant's unlawful practice of failing to conduct genuine, good faith investigations into consumers' accounts when they make fraud claims arising from unauthorized debit card transactions and failing to provide detailed explanations when Defendant denies those claims in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (the "EFTA"). Among the widespread protections afforded under these statutes, financial institutions like NFCU are required to maintain thorough practices for error resolution, including to promptly investigate fraud claims, to provide consumers with substantive written explanations of its investigations and conclusions, to limit consumer liability for unauthorized transactions, and, if ultimately denying those fraud claims, to bear the burden of proving that a consumers' disputed transactions were in fact authorized. In the case of Plaintiff, however, NFCU blatantly flouted several of these requirements to Plaintiff's financial detriment. Immediately after Plaintiff learned that his debit card was stolen, he alerted NFCU to the loss and submitted a fraud claim with supporting factual proof that nearly $1,000 in unauthorized charges had occurred. After only one day of a shoddy investigation, NFCU flatly denied Plaintiff's claim on the grounds that "no error occurred" but failed to offer any detailed explanation of its investigation or how it arrived at its conclusion—not just once, but on three separate occasions. At bottom, NFCU's single-day, factually unsupported investigation of Plaintiff's fraud claim falls woefully short of satisfying its obligations to accountholders under the EFTA and Regulation E. Indeed, despite Plaintiff submitting detailed information to prove he incurred unauthorized transactions, NFCU flatly refused to find any "error" occurred and did so without providing any substantive explanation or justification. It was Defendant's burden to prove that these disputed transactions were authorized—not Plaintiff's--and its failure to do so is unlawful and unfair to Plaintiff and thousands of other consumers who have to bear the consequences of stolen funds in unlimited sums. NFCU's flagrant disregard of the EFTA's and Regulation E's requirements subjects its accountholders like Plaintiff who similarly fell victim to debit card theft to shoulder hundreds of dollars in fraudulent purchases that they did not authorize or have any control over, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a joint owner of a NFCU checking account with his 17-year-old son. Navy Federal Credit Union is a national credit union with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Vienna, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Ramirez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Arturo Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEOVIA LOGISTICS DISTRIBUTION, LP; NEOVIA LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2320935 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, State of California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02104. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Timely During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tracie Childs, CA Bar No. 190806 Keenan P. O'Connor, CA Bar No. 311800 Brett R. Tengberg, CA Bar No. 318436 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: tracie.childs@ogletree.com keenan.oconnor@ogletree.com brett.tengberg@ogletree.com NEWMAN UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newman University, Inc. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Newman University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08905-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Newman University -- https://newmanu.edu/ -- is a private Roman Catholic university in Wichita, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 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: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal NEWMARK GROUP: Faces Suit for Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------- Newmark Group, 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 March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint named the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00265). The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited partners on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that the defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law. Newmark Group, Inc., and Newmark Holdings jointly own Newmark Partners, L.P., the operating partnership, a service provider to large institutional investors, global corporations, and other owners and occupiers of commercial real estate that offers a diverse array of integrated services that includes capital markets (investment sales and commercial mortgage brokerage), agency leasing, valuation and advisory, property management, business rates, due diligence consulting and other advisory services including multifamily lending and loan servicing, and flexible workspace solutions for owners. NORTH STAR AUTO: Faces Motino Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ EDWIN MOTINO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH STAR AUTO BODY LLC, NORTH STAR AUTO BODY II LLC, NORTH STAR AUTO BODY III LLC, NORTH STAR COLLISION, INC., and RICHARD VALENTI, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07442 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2023) sues over Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements for each pay period, and failure to provide a wage notice upon hire under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an autobody mechanic from February 2020 to June 14, 2023. He performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants including performing autobody work and inspecting vehicles. North Star Auto Body LLC operates an auto body shop and maintains a place of business in Oceanside, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara V. Messina, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP, PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: smessina@romerolawny.com NURSES FIRST SOLUTIONS: Onyia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurses First Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Cleopatra Onyia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Nurses First Solutions, LLC, Case No. 23CV009828 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 12, 2023). Nurses First Solutions -- https://nursesfirstsolutions.com/ -- provides nursing staff to facilities in need of this qualified manpower.[BN] ORGAIN LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Beverages' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action accuses Orgain and parent company Nestle Health Science U.S. Holdings, Inc. of false advertising, given that some of their protein and nutritional shakes allegedly contain less grass-fed protein than represented. The 37-page lawsuit says that contrary to the beverages' front-label representations -- which prominently claim that the products contain eight, 16 or 26 grams of "grass-fed protein," respectively -- the protein in the shakes is, in fact, a blend of grass-fed protein and organic protein. According to the suit, the products at issue include: Kids Protein Organic Nutritional Shake - Fruity Cereal; Kids Protein Organic Nutritional Shake - Vanilla; Kids Protein Organic Nutritional Shake - Chocolate; Kids Protein Organic Nutritional Shake - Strawberry; 26g Organic Protein Grass Fed Protein Shake; Organic Nutrition Shake - Sweet Vanilla Bean; Organic Nutrition Shake - Creamy Chocolate Fudge; Organic Nutrition Shake - Iced Café Mocha; and Organic Nutrition Shake - Strawberries & Cream. Unlike grass-fed protein, organic protein comes from cows fed grain and corn and provides significantly less conjugated linoleic acid and fewer Omega-3s, the case explains. Per the complaint, higher levels of Omega-3s, like those found in purely grass-fed protein, are believed to benefit the immune system, fight inflammation and help prevent chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. "Moreover, because grass-fed cows are raised outdoors eating only grass on open pastures, entirely grass-fed cows are raised more humanely than other cows, and provide certain environmental benefits that organic and conventional cows do not," the filing adds. In light of the foregoing, shoppers are willing to pay a premium for the Orgain shakes based on the company's representations that the items are sources of this superior type of protein, the lawsuit argues. "Unfortunately for consumers," however, the companies have "resorted to false and deceptive labeling to boost sales and increase profits from the products, all at the expense of unsuspecting consumers," the suit contends. The plaintiffs, California residents who bought Orgain's chocolate-flavored kids protein shakes in the last few months, say they would not have paid as much for the products, or purchased them at all, had they known the amount of grass-fed protein the shakes contained was misrepresented. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased any of the products listed on this page for personal use and not for resale within the applicable statute of limitations period. The case is Bennett et al. v. Orgain, LLC et al. [GN] ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Somogyi Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Organogenesis Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that after a briefing held on May 30, 2023, a motion to dismiss a class action complaint is currently pending with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 10, 2021, said class action complaint captioned "Somogyi v. Organogenesis Holdings Inc., et al." was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of its securities against the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The court appointed Donald Martin as lead plaintiff. Mr. Martin filed an amended complaint on October 24, 2022 that brings claims on behalf of a purported class of all purchasers of its securities from August 10, 2020 through August 9, 2022 and alleges violations of federal securities law in connection with alleged false and misleading statements with respect to, among other matters, revenue, sales growth and ability to compete in connection with its "Affinity" and "PuraPly XT" products. The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unquantified damages as well as attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The action is in the early stages of litigation. Organogenesis Holdings Inc. is a regenerative medicine company focused on the development, manufacture, and commercialization of solutions for the advanced wound care and surgical & sports medicine markets. OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Carpenter Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------- Oscar Health, 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 securities class action lawsuit filed on May 12, 2022, against the company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the company's initial public offering was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned "Carpenter v. Oscar Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-CV-03885. The initial complaint in the Securities Action asserted violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act based on the company's purported failure to disclose in its IPO registration statement growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs, the impact of significant Special Enrollment Period membership, and risk adjustment data validation results for 2019 and 2020. By Court orders dated September 27, 2022 and December 13, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. An amended complaint filed on December 6, 2022 asserts the same violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, but this time based on the company's alleged failure to disclose in its IPO registration statement purportedly inadequate controls and systems in connection with the risk adjustment data validation audit for 2019, alleging that this purported omission caused losses and damages for members of the putative class. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages as well as interest, fees and costs. On April 4, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion was completed on July 7, 2023. Oscar Health, Inc. is a health insurance company built around a full stack technology platform. Headquartered in New York City, Oscar offers two complementary products: Health plans sold to individual, small group and medicare advantage members and a technology platform that enables arrangements with other payors and providers. OUTDOOR RESEARCH: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outdoor Research, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Outdoor Research, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08888 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Outdoor Research -- https://www.outdoorresearch.com/ -- is a Seattle-based manufacturer of technical apparel and gear for outdoor sports, including alpinism, rock and ice climbing, backpacking, paddling, and backcountry skiing and snowboarding.[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 PACIFIC MARITIME: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al. The case is styled as Pamela Hill, La Tina Blackmon, Tiyuana Blair, Cory Brown, Rhonda Johnson, Stephen Johnson, Shyraun Ruffin, Sheila Seals, Jeri Stewart, Derrick Young, individually, on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, APM TERMINALS NORTH AMERICA INC., APM TERMINALS PACIFIC LLC, COSCO SHIPPING TERMINALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE EVERGLADES COMPANY TERMINAL, INC., EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., FENIX MARINE SERVICES, LTD., INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC, LBCT, LLC, MAERSK A/S, MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION, METRO CRUISE SERVICES LLC, METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY, PACIFIC TERMINAL SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, PASHA STEVEDORING & TERMINALS, INC., PASHA STEVEDORING & TERMINALS, L.P., PORTS AMERICA CRUISE, INC., SSA CONTAINERS, INC., SSA MARINE, INC., SSA PACIFIC, INC., SSA TERMINALS, LLC, STEVEDORING SERVICES OF AMERICA 811-WA, TERMINAL INVESTMENT LIMITED, TOTAL TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, TRAPAC, LLC, WEST BASIN CONTAINER TERMINAL, LLC, YANG MING (AMERICA) CORPORATION, YUSEN TERMINALS LLC, Case No. CIVSB2324882 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Oct. 10, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." The Pacific Maritime Association -- http://www.pmanet.org/-- is a non-profit organization based in San Francisco, California that represents employers of the shipping industry on the Pacific coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Hakim, Esq. DAVIS GAVSIE & HAKIM, LLP 100 Wilshire Blvd., St. 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401-3602 Phone: 310-789-2240 Fax: 310-789-2249 Email: Frank@DGHLawyers.com PENSION BENEFIT: Berry Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Berry and Bonnie Gayle Ng, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC (doing business as PBI RESEARCH SERVICES); THE BERWYN GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 3:23-cv-03297 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 12, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12362-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Pension Benefit Information -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- provides pension management service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Erickson, Esq. Elizabeth Kramer, Esq. Kevin Osborne, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 44 Tehama Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-635-0631 Fax: 415-599-8088 Email: julie@eko.law elizabeth@eko.law kevin@eko.law The Defendant is represented by: James Francis Monagle, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 309 Fellowship Rd., Suite 200 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: (267) 930-1529 Email: jmonagle@mullen.law PENSKE TRUCK: McDowell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., et al. The case is styled as Eric McDowell, Noel Perez, Aaron Stubbs, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2324882 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Oct. 10, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. -- https://www.pensketruckleasing.com/ -- is a joint venture of Penske Corporation, Penske Automotive Group, and Mitsui & Co.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: SKAPIK LAW GROUP PERFORMANCE RUNNING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Performance Running Outfitters, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Performance Running Outfitters, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08889 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Performance Running Outfitters -- https://www.performancerunning.com/ -- is a locally owned specialty running store that has catered to all levels of athletes and fitness enthusiasts.[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 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Lee Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lee, Toni Heuchan, Jonathan Brandman, Michelle Garza, and Cece Davenport, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY; HELEN OF TROY LIMITED, Case No. 2:23-cv-21126 (D.N.J., Oct. 12, 2023), is brought as a consumer protection class action arising out of Defendants' false and misleading advertising of its oral phenylephrine ("PE") Products. The Defendants distribute, market and sell oral PE Products marketed as nasal decongestants. Defendants represent and sell oral PE Products to provide benefits for the indications specified--to provide nasal congestion relief to all consumers who ingest oral PE Products. The claimed nasal congestion health benefits are the only reason a consumer would purchase oral PE Products. Defendants' advertising claims, however, are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public. Each of the oral PE Products at issue in Defendants' cold relief product lines, through their labeling and packaging, and through Defendants' other advertising and marketing materials, communicate the same substantive message to consumers: that oral PE Products provide meaningful nasal congestive relief health benefits. The Defendants' oral PE Products, however, are incapable of supporting or providing nasal congestion health benefits because the ingredient in each of Defendants' oral PE Products at issue cannot support or benefit nasal decongestion. Numerous well designed and well conducted scientific studies have been conducted on the effects and efficacy of oral PE Products. These studies have demonstrated that oral PE Products are ineffective in providing relief of nasal congestion because PE is too rapidly metabolized by individuals, which does not allow it to reach the nostrils in time to provide relief. These studies apply to oral PE Products' target audience, which includes people with nasal congestion. Accordingly, Defendants' nasal decongestion relief health representations are false, misleading, and deceptive, and its oral PE Products are worthless. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers to obtain redress for those who have purchased Defendants' oral PE Products at issue, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Vicks products on several occasions. The Defendant sells Vicks® products through its website, www.vicks.com, and through various retail stores, including Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Rite Aid and Target.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1234 Camino del Mar Email Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: 619-762-1910 Email Fax: 724-656-1556 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com scott@lcllp.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Patrick Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com kelly@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240 Chicago IL 60602 Phone: 312.750.1265 Email: katrina@lcllp.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Bailey Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bruce Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, Pension Benefit Information, LLC doing business as: PBI Research Services, Case No. 0:23-cv-02028 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 12, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12356 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an American public company that offers software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Serwin, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP US 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Phone: (858) 677-1418 Fax: (858) 638-5063 Email: kbogart@duplass.com - and - Eric M. Roberts, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 368-2167 Fax: (312) 251-2859 Email: eric.roberts@dlapiper.com - and - Haley Dee Torrey, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 4900 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7300 Phone: (215) 656-2436 Fax: (215) 606-2058 Email: haley.torrey@dlapiper.com - and - Holley C. M. Horrell, Esq. GREENE ESPEL PLLP 222 S 9th St., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 373-8394 Email: hhorrell@greeneespel.com - and - Jeffrey Tsai, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP US 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Phone: (415) 615-6055 Fax: (415) 659-7380 Email: jeff.tsai@dlapiper.com - and - Claudia D. McCarron, Esq. Paulyne Gardner, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200 Devon, PA 19333 Phone: (267) 930-4770 Fax: (267) 930-4771 Email: cmccarron@mullen.law pgardner@mullen.law - and - Emily Liebman, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 750-0548 Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com - and - Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON EDELMAN BORMAN BRAND LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55144 Phone: (612) 672-8309 Email: keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Berry Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jason Berry, and others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02089 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 11, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12343-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an American public company that offers software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Etherton Truitt, Esq. Kaylin Kinley Storey, Esq. Lou Anne Milliman, Esq. Michelle Mayne Davis, Esq. THE TRUITT LAW FIRM 1321 Ochsner Boulevard, Suite 200 Covington, LA 70433 Phone: (985) 327-5266 Fax: (985) 327-5252 Email: btruitt@truittlaw.com kstorey@truittlaw.com lmilliman@truittlaw.com mdavis@truittlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kelly Cambre Bogart, Esq. DUPLASS, ZWAIN, BOURGEOIS, PFISTER, WEINSTOCK & BOGART Three Lakeway Center 3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 2900 Metairie, LA 70002 Phone: (504) 832-3700 Email: kbogart@duplass.com - and - Philip G. Watson, Esq. DUPLASS APLC 433 Metairie Road, Suite 600 Metairie, LA 70005 Phone: (504) 830-4417 Fax: (504) 324-0676 Email: pwatson@duplass.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: McAdam Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Annie McAdam, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02295 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 12, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12350-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for the Federal Trade Commission Act. Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an American public company that offers software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. TerriAnne Benedetto, Esq. Glenn E. Mintzer, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 The Defendant is represented by: Kelly Cambre Bogart, Esq. DUPLASS, ZWAIN, BOURGEOIS, PFISTER, WEINSTOCK & BOGART Three Lakeway Center 3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 2900 Metairie, LA 70002 Phone: (504) 832-3700 Email: kbogart@duplass.com - and - Philip G. Watson, Esq. DUPLASS APLC 433 Metairie Road, Suite 600 Metairie, LA 70005 Phone: (504) 830-4417 Fax: (504) 324-0676 Email: pwatson@duplass.com PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Restrict Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elliott Ambrosio and Laura Rhodes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company and Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00342-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs file a motion for leave to restrict portions of plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs move for an Order directing the Clerk to file under seal parts of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification and its accompanying exhibits designated as confidential by Defendants, Progressive Preferred Insurance Company and Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. Progressive offers homeowners insurance, workmen's compensation coverage, automotive insurance, and property and casualty re-insurance services to individuals and businesses. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Txl7r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com PUBLIC STORAGE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Public Storage Operating Company. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Public Storage Operating Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-07579 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Public Storage -- http://www.publicstorage.com/-- is an American international self storage company headquartered in Glendale, California, that is run as a real estate investment trust.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com QUALCOMM INC: Faces Class Action Over Employee Retirement Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges Qualcomm Incorporated has breached its fiduciary duties by using forfeited funds in its employee savings and retirement plan entirely for its own benefit. The 22-page case against Qualcomm, a California-based semiconductor and telecommunications company, says participants pay for the plan's administrative expenses through a quarterly deduction taken directly from their accounts. In addition, when a plan participant has a break in service before they can vest 100 percent of Qualcomm's contributions on the second anniversary of their hire date, the participant forfeits any unvested company contributions in their account, the lawsuit explains. Rather than use these forfeited funds to cover administrative expenses, Qualcomm and the committee created to assist in managing the plan have consistently chosen to use these assets to reduce the company's contributions to the plan, the complaint contends. However, under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Qualcomm and its retirement committee were required to act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries" by "defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan," the case claims. "By declining to use forfeited funds in the Plan to eliminate the administrative expenses charged to participant accounts, and instead using such Plan assets to reduce the Company's own contribution expenses," the complaint alleges that the defendants have "caused participants to incur expense deductions from their individual accounts that would otherwise have been covered in whole or in part by utilizing the forfeited funds to pay Plan expenses." According to the filing, the defendants have also caused participants and beneficiaries to receive fewer company contributions. For example, in 2021, Qualcomm's reallocation of forfeited funds for its own benefit reduced its contributions to the plan by $1,222,072, the complaint shares. Though the defendants incurred $954,269 in administrative expenses that year, they did not use any forfeited funds to cover those costs, the suit charges. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who has been a participant or beneficiary of the Qualcomm Incorporated employee savings and retirement plan since January 1, 2019. [GN] RELIANT LIFE SHARES: Reed Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Reed, Carolyn Reed, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Reliant Life Shares LLC, RLS Financial Services Inc., Reliant Life Shares Series Trust also known as: RLS Trust, RMS Trust, Sean Michales, Scott Grady, Wilmington Savings Fund Society doing business as: Christiana Trust, UMB Bank N.A., BOU Bancorp Inc. doing business as: Bank of Utah, First Western Trust Bank, Does 1-20, Case No. 23STCV19709 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 11, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-08577-CBM-MRW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Reliant Life Shares LLC offers investment service in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Thomas Foley, Esq. Kevin D Gamarnik, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE AND CURTIS LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 962-9495 Fax: (805) 965-0722 Email: tfoley@foleybezek.com kgamarnik@foleybezek.com - and - Richard E Donahoo, Esq. Sarah Louise Kokonas, Esq. DONAHOO AND ASSOCIATES PC 440 West First Street Suite 101 Tustin, CA 92780 Phone: (714) 953-1010 Fax: (714) 953-1777 Email: rdonahoo@donahoo.com skokonas@donahoo.com The Defendant is represented by: David Harford, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 223-7000 Fax: (949) 223-7100 Email: david.harford@bclplaw.com RPT REALTY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Kimco Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2023 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: RPT Realty (NYSE: RPT), relating to its proposed merger with Kimco Realty. Under the terms of the agreement, RPT shareholders are expected to receive 0.6049 shares of Kimco per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/rpt-realty. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. SP Plus Corp. (Nasdaq: SP), relating to its proposed sale to Metropolis Technologies, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, SP shareholders will receive $54.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/sp-plus-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Olink Holding AB. (Nasdaq: OLK), relating to its proposed sale to Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. Under the terms of the tender offer, OLK shareholders will receive $26.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/olink-holding-ab. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. PCTEL, Inc. (Nasdaq: PCTI), relating to its proposed sale to Amphenol Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, PCTI shareholders will receive $7.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/pctel-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Deibler Suit Transferred to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Holly Deibler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-20155 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Oct. 10, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00719-HCN to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. SanMedica International, LLC develops and distributes anti-aging products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Celine Cohan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 483 Ninth Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: apersigner@tzlegal.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Phone: (856) 858-1770 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com SANT P. CHAWLA: Torres Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Consuelo Torres, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated Aggrieved Employees v. SANT P. CHAWLA M.D., INC., a California Corporation, VICTORIA CHUA, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV24658 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 10, 2023), is brought pursuant to California Labor Code for the recovery of civil penalties based on wage and hour violations. The Plaintiff was not compensated the minimum wage for all hours worked and was forced to work hours off the clock; was not provided with accurate itemized wage and hour statements pursuant to applicable Labor Code requirements; was not compensated all wages earned and owed in a timely manner as required by the Labor Code; worked more than 8 hours in any given day and/or more than 40 hours in any given week, but was not paid overtime compensation pursuant to applicable Labor Code requirements; Worked more than 12 hours in any given day and/or more than 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day in any given week, but was not paid double-overtime compensation pursuant to applicable Labor Code requirements; Was not paid all wages earned and owed at the time of his or her termination or within 72 hours of his or her resignation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees. SANT P. CHAWLA M.D., INC., dba SARCOMA ONCOLOGY CENTER, INC. was and is a California corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq. Lisa Noveck, Esq. Jameson Evans, Esq. Amanda M. Thompson, Esq. EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C. 1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (310) 853-3461 Facsimile: (949) 743-5442 Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com lisan@pierrelacour.com jamesone@pierrelacour.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sadasey Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Dion Sadasey, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Case No. CACE-23-019517 (Fla. 17th Judicial Ct., Broward Cty., Oct. 11, 2023), is brought sues the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), as a result to the Defendant's unlawful debt collection. On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"). The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt. The Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The FCCPA defines "communication" as 'the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium." The Defendant is a within the meaning of the FCCPA prohibits persons from communicating with a debtor between the hours Of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the debtor. On September or October 2023, Defendant sent a text message communication to Plaintiff (the "Communication"). The Defendant sent an electronic communication to Plaintiff in connection With the collection Of the Consumer Debt. (the "Electronic Communication"). The Electronic Communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and through the Electronic Communication, Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 628-5793 Fax: (954) 507-9974 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com SANTEE COOPER: Non-Profit to Get $484,345 from 2021 Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Brooke Frierson, writing for WPDE, report that an energy conservation non-profit is using money from a class action settlement to help low-income families in Horry, Georgetown and Berkeley counties save money on their energy bills. The Sustainability Institute will get $484,345 in unclaimed money from the 2021 settlement of the class action lawsuit Hearn v. Santee Cooper. The case was filed in 2017 on behalf of Santee Cooper customers who paid higher or wrong utility rates in connection with the company's canceled project at the Pee Dee Energy Campus. It was settled in 2021. After vetting several organizations, attorneys representing the ratepayers selected the Sustainability Institute to provide a variety of services that will help low-income residents reduce their electrical usage. The organization will use the funding to: -- Provide 750 to 1,000 households with energy conservation education through in-person and online community workshops; -- Conduct comprehensive energy audits, including diagnostic performance testing, for 150 households; -- Perform meaningful weatherization upgrades to 150 households; -- Serve between 30 and 60 households in need of more extensive home performance upgrades; and -- Replace HVAC systems for at least five households Bryan Cordell, director of the Sustainability Institute said "The Sustainability Institute is delighted to receive this funding to assist Santee Cooper customers with energy improvements to their homes and other services that will reduce energy bills." [GN] SBARRO LLC: Flanagan Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karina Flanagan, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") v. SBARRO LLC, a New York limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2215967 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02074. On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Improper Wage Statements; Wages Not Paid Upon Separation; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Provide Reporting Pay; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Violation of Labor Code (Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")); Unlawful Business Practices; Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ryan C. Bykerk, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.732.6500 Facsimile: 949.732.6501 Email: bykerkr@gtlaw.com - and - Matthew Weber, Esq. 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: 310.586.7700 Facsimile: 310.586.7800 Email: Matthew.Weber@gtlaw.com SCORES CHICAGO: Rattunde Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Rattunde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCORES CHICAGO GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, Case No. 1:23-cv-14706 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 10, 2023), is brought for not paying minimum wage as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), 820 ILCS § 105/1, et seq. by failing to pay dancers the required state minimum wage; and (2) the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and for taking a portion of the dancers' tips and allowing and requiring dancers to share their tips with individuals not eligible to share in a tip pool. The Defendant retains the power to hire and fire the exotic dancers and has disciplined or threatened to discipline dancers who do not comply with Defendant's requirements regarding the manner and means of their work. The Defendant may fine dancers if they are caught chewing gum on the premises, or if the dancer fails to meet the club's weight and appearance requirements. In fact, there were multiple occasions that Plaintiff was fined $75 per shift for not meeting the club's weight and appearance rules. The Defendant has treated Plaintiff and its other dancers in a substantially similar manner with respect to its policies and practices. The Defendant did not pay the exotic dancers who have worked at Scores the prevailing minimum wage. prevailing minimum wage. The exotic dancers who have worked at Scores receive compensation only in the form of gratuities from patrons. In order to perform their job, the dancers have been required to pay "house fees" to Scores for every shift. Likewise, when customers pay tip with the club's "funny money", Defendant has retained a portion of all such tips, thereby taking unlawful deductions from dancers' pay. The dancers have also been required to share their tips with managers and with non-service employees or agents of Scores, such as "house moms", disc jockeys, and security, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked at Scores as an exotic dancer in 2016/2017, and then again from 2019 until February 2023. Scores is an adult entertainment strip club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Fax (617) 994-5801 Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com SELENE FINANCE: England Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTEL ENGLAND, KAREN MEYERS, and ANGELA JOYNER-PERRY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-847 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 4, 2023) is a consumer protection action brought by Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated to obtain redress from Selene's systematic use of unlawful and unfair debt collection practices to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, during the relevant time period, Selene sent borrowers, including Plaintiffs, form letters alleging that the borrowers are in default of their mortgages and that the failure to immediately make a full and complete payment of all arrearages will result in acceleration of their loan, hereinafter referred to as the "NC Final Letters." However, the false ultimatum contained in the NC Final Letters contradicts Selene's actual policies regarding acceleration and foreclosure. The NC Final Letters sent by Selene to each of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated is a false and misleading threat of acceleration and foreclosure designed to intimidate borrowers into making payments to Selene that are beyond their means and beyond what is necessary to avoid acceleration and to save their homes from foreclosure, the suit says. Selene Finance, LP is a servicer of mortgages for residential housing loans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. Michael Dunn, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com michael.dunn@milberg.com - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com emaginnis@maginnislaw.com SKYLIGHT HOLDINGS: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Normandy Rafael Hernandez Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKYLIGHT HOLDINGS 2 INC. d/b/a MARKET PLACE by KEY FOOD, and JUAN IGNACIO PEREZ SR. and JUAN PEREZ JR., as individuals, Case No. 1:23-cv-07602 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2023), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 hours or more hours each week from in or around September 2020 until in or around August 2021, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice at the time of his hire or at any time during his employment in violation of the NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement that included all hours worked and all wages received each week when Plaintiff was paid in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 2020 until August 2021 as a butcher, order clerk, stocker and cleaner while performing related miscellaneous duties. SKYLIGHT HOLDINGS 2 INC. d/b/a MARKET PLACE by KEY FOOD, is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 SMCH INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMCH Inc. The case is styled as Marlelis Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMCH Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08933-DEH-OTW (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smoky Mountain Children's Home -- https://www.smch.org/ -- is a private, faith-based, non-profit, multi-service agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick William Gallagher, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (347) 745-0445 Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com SNAP FINANCE: Class Settlement to be Heard on January 23, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- Simpluris Inc. on Oct. 18 disclosed that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit concerning a data incident involving personally identifiable information ("PII") collected by Snap Finance LLC and/or Snap RTO LLC that occurred between June 23, 2002, and September 8, 2022 (the "Data Incident"). The Settlement would resolve a lawsuit in which Plaintiffs allege that Defendant acted improperly in securing this PII. Defendant denies any wrongdoing. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and has made no determination of violations or liability against Defendant. The parties nevertheless have agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation. Who is included in the Settlement? Settlement Class includes all U.S. residents who: (i) provided PII to Defendant; and (ii) received a letter from Defendant in December 2022 with notification of the Data Incident. What are the settlement benefits? The Settlement provides for two (2) years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services for everyone who timely submits a valid claim. Further, the Settlement provides up to $5,000.00 in cash reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses related to the Data Incident. In addition, all class members may submit a claim for a Pro Rata cash payment of up to $500.00. Lastly, class members who are California residents may claim a cash payment of up to $200.00 under the California Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"). The final amount of the CCPA and Pro Rata cash payments will be determined by the number of claims received. How do I receive a payment or other benefit? To receive any payments or benefits under the Settlement, you MUST submit a claim. To submit a claim, you may visit www.SnapFinanceDataSettlement.com. You may also call 833-200-7006 to request that a Claim Form be mailed to you. Claims must be submitted online or postmarked by January 16, 2024. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by December 18, 2023 or you will not be able to sue the Defendant for released claims relating to the Data Incident. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get money or benefits from this Settlement. If you want to object to the Settlement, you may file an objection by December 18, 2023. The detailed Notice explains how to submit a Claim Form, exclude yourself, or object. When will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement? The Court will hold a hearing in this case on January 23, 2024 at Orrin G. Hatch United States Courthouse, 351 South West Temple Street, Room 8.300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, to consider whether to approve the Settlement. The Court will also consider Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees of up to 30% of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of litigation expenses of no more than $50,000.00 for litigating the case and negotiating the Settlement on behalf of the Class, and service awards of $2,500.00 for the Plaintiffs. You may attend the hearing, but you do not have to. For more information, call 833-200-7006 or visit www.SnapFinanceDataSettlement.com and read the detailed Notice. [GN] SOLARWINDS CORP: Securities Suit Over Cyber Attack Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ SolarWinds Corporation 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 12, 2023, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a final judgment dismissing a consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers in that court without prejudice. Said action was were filed, purportedly on behalf of the company in said court asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain of its current and former officers and directors in connection with a cyberattack on its Orion Software Platform and internal systems. SolarWinds Corporation is a provider of information technology management software for use across industries ranging in size from very small businesses to large enterprises. SOLARWINDS CORP: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- SolarWinds Corporation 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 28, 2023, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a final settlement hearing after which the court entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement of a complaint of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between October 18, 2018 and December 17, 2020 and sought unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 28, 2022, the parties entered into a binding settlement term sheet with respect to the securities class action lawsuit and lead plaintiff filed the parties' Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the court on December 8, 2022. On February 8, 2023, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on March 2, 2023, the company paid $26 million to fund claims submitted by class members, the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. SolarWinds Corporation is a provider of information technology management software for use across industries ranging in size from very small businesses to large enterprises. SOLARWINDS CORP: State Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ SolarWinds Corporation 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 October 13, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing a consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers in that court without prejudice and on May 17, 2023, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware entered an order affirming the Delaware Court of Chancery's judgment. Said action was were filed, purportedly on behalf of the company in said court asserting breach of duty and other claims against certain of its current and former officers and directors in connection with a cyberattack on its Orion Software Platform and internal systems. SolarWinds Corporation is a provider of information technology management software for use across industries ranging in size from very small businesses to large enterprises. SONDER HOLDINGS: Wang Data Breach Suit Ongoing in Colorado Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sonder Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on August 8, 2023, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado captioned "Wang v. Sonder Holdings Inc." The complaint asserts claims based on its alleged failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the putative class in connection with its previously disclosed November 2022 information technology security incident. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Sonder Holdings Inc., provides short and long-term accommodations to travelers in various cities across North America, Europe, and the Middle East. It also operates boutique hotels. STROM AVIATION: Matlak Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN MATLAK, individually and for others similarly situated v. STROM AVIATION, INC, Case No. 0:23-cv-03077 (D. Minn., Oct. 4, 2023) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Matlak worked for Strom as an aircraft mechanic from approximately July 2020 until February 2021. He asserts that although he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week, Strom did not pay him overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, Strom paid him (and other workers like him) the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those after 40 in a week, says the Plaintiff. Strom Aviation, Inc. is a full-service aviation staffing company headquartered in Waconia, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.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: tjones@mybackwages.com 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 SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Faces Fung Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------- Sunlight Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on December 16, 2022, Kathie Fung filed a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:22-cv-10658) against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. After the complaint was filed, Matthew Millunchick was named as lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2023. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Sunlight's business, operations, and financial prospects. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Sunlight's positive statements about Sunlight's business, operations, and financial prospects were materially misleading because Sunlight allegedly lacked effective internal controls and oversight that led to Sunlight taking a non-cash advance receivables impairment charge exceeding $30 million in September 2022. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and the recovery of fees, including attorneys' fees. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 21, 2023. Sunlight Financial Holdings Inc. is a technology-enabled point-of-sale finance company that uses a nationwide network of contractors at the point-of-sale, to offer homeowners secured and unsecured loans, originated by third-party lenders, for the purchase and installation of residential solar energy systems and other home improvements. SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces UAPP Suit in New York ------------------------------------------ Syneos Health, 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 27, 2023, a putative stockholder of the company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned "United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, Journeymen, Local #38 (UAPP) Defined Benefit Pension Plan vs. Syneos Health, Inc. et al." in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. In its complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly disseminating or approving statements, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were false and misleading. The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's Class A common stock between September 9, 2020 and November 3, 2022, and seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or injunctive relief the court deems just and proper. Syneos Health, Inc. is a global provider of end-to-end biopharmaceutical outsourcing solutions. It operates under two reportable segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. It derives its revenue through a suite of services designed to enhance its customers' ability to successfully develop, launch, and market their products offering its solutions on both a standalone and integrated basis with biopharmaceutical development and commercialization services ranging from Phase I to IV clinical trial services to services associated with the commercialization of biopharmaceutical products. TITAN CHAIR: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Titan Chair LLC. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Titan Chair LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08935 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Titan Chair LLC -- https://titanchair.com/ -- is one of the leading distributors of electric massage chairs, handheld massagers, foot massagers, fitness machines, and back relief products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick William Gallagher, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (347) 745-0445 Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com TONY'S FINE FOODS: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tony's Fine Foods, et al. The case is styled as Donja Rayquon Brooks, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apium Logistices LLC, Case No. 23CV009861 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 12, 2023). Tony’s Fine Foods -- http://tonysfinefoods.com/-- is a retail food chain company.[BN] TRANSUNION CORP: Averts Class Action Over FCRA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Esq., and Emilee N. Crowther, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that in Sgouros v. Transunion Corp., No. 1:14-CV-01850, 2023 WL 6690474 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2023), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification in a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") case because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements of commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance. For entities facing FCRA class actions, this decision provides a concise explanation of what factors courts may consider with respect to commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance in ruling on a motion for class certification. Case Background In this litigation, Defendants are collectively a well-known American consumer credit reporting agency. In 2013, Defendants offered a 3-in-1 Credit Report, Credit Score & Debt Analysis for consumers to purchase. The 3-in-1 report included a VantageScore, which, similar to a FICO score, looks at the information in a consumer's credit report and generates a score to help lenders determine a consumer's creditworthiness. On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 3-in-1 Credit Report and VantageScore from Defendants. Id. at 1. On the same day he purchased the report, Plaintiff alleged he was denied his desired auto loan because "the credit score the lender was provided was more than 100 points lower than the number contained in the VantageScore [Plaintiff] purchased." Id. Plaintiff later testified he knew the VantageScore was "useless" in September 2012, and failed to provide an explanation as to why he purchased a VantageScore nine months after such realization. Id. Plaintiff also testified that, contrary to the allegations in his complaint, he did not buy the score in advance of his search for an auto loan, and "he did not read the TransUnion website content that accompanied the purchase of his VantageScore." Id. In 2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). Id. Plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class and a Missouri-based class consisting of all persons "who purchased a VantageScore 1.0 Score through TransUnion Interactive's website, or its predecessor website, during the period October 1, 2009, to September 1, 2015." Id. The Court's Decision The Court held that Plaintiff failed to establish commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance for both the FCRA and MMPA claims under Rule 23(a) and (b), and denied class certification. Id. at 6. Rule 23(a)(2) – Commonality Plaintiffs must demonstrate that "there are questions of law or fact common to the class" to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). Id. at 3. Importantly, Plaintiff is required to "demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered the same injury,'" and that the claims are "capable of classwide resolution." Id. (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)). Plaintiff asserted five questions to establish commonality. Id. Overall, the Court found Plaintiff's commonality questions were insufficient because they "merely restate[d] the core elements of statutory violations" and did not demonstrate "to what extent the class members suffered a common injury." Id. Specifically as to the alleged FCRA violations, the "core liability dispute" was whether or not Defendants failed to supply the class "with a credit score . . . that assist[ed] the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer." Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserted that the VantageScore could not assist consumers in understanding their credit score assessment "because the VantageScore was not similar enough to a FICO score and or widely used by lenders." Id. at 4. The Court disagreed. It held that because Plaintiff failed to present any argument or evidence "independent of a comparison to a FICO score," Plaintiff's common questions were not "capable of common answers," and Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement was not met. Id. Similarly, "[b]ecause [Plaintiff's] MMPA common question . . . [was] premised on the same logic as the FCRA claim," the Court found that "commonality was not met." Id. Rule 23(a)(4) – Adequacy of Representation A named plaintiff must also establish they can adequately serve as a class representative under Rule 23(a)(4). Id. A named plaintiff is inadequate if they "have serious credibility problems" or if they have "antagonistic of conflicting" interests to absent class members. Id. The Court held that Plaintiff was inadequate to represent the class on both the FCRA and MMPA claims due to Plaintiff's questionable credibility and the inconsistencies in his deposition testimony. Id. at 4-5. Rule 23(b)(3) – Predominance The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the putative class claims "predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," and are "sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." Id. at 5. The Court found that the FCRA's statutory requirement of assisting a consumer in understanding their credit score is "necessarily individualized given the inherently personal nature how credit scores are calculated and consumers' personal behaviors," and predominance was not met. Id. Implications For Credit Reporting Companies This ruling provides a straightforward analysis of what elements courts may find persuasive in ruling on a motion for class certification in an FCRA class action. It ought to be a required read for corporate counsel in any FCRA case. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF FINDLAY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The University of Findlay. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. The University of Findlay, Case No. 1:23-cv-09005-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University of Findlay -- https://www.findlay.edu/Pages/Default.aspx -- is a private Christian university in Findlay, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb 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: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal UPSTART HOLDINGS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that it is facing an ongoing consolidated shareholder class action against the company, the company's Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On July 26, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned "Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al.," Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD claiming unspecified damages and legal fees. On August 16, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in the Crain action. On December 5, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which names the same defendants as the previous complaint, along with two company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC and its managing partner (also a former Upstart board member). The consolidated amended complaint brings the same claims as the previous complaint but adds a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. On February 24, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 25, 2023, and defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on May 25, 2023. No hearing date has been set for that motion. Upstart Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provides lending partners with access to a proprietary, cloud-based, artificial intelligence lending marketplace. UPSTART HOLDINGS: HFA Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on July 27, 2022, plaintiff in a purported class action lawsuit captioned "Handelsbanken Fonder AB v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 2:22-cv-02706-SDM-EPD filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit without prejudice. On July 7, 2022, said class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio against the company, the company's Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Ward lawsuit claimed unspecified damages and legal fees. On July 12, 2022, motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in the Handelsbanken Fonder action. Upstart Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provides lending partners with access to a proprietary, cloud-based, artificial intelligence lending marketplace. UPSTART HOLDINGS: PCRA Voluntarily Dismisses Suit ------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on July 11, 2022, Plymouth County Retirement Association filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit without prejudice. On May 19, 2022 a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned "Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:22-cv-02973-WHO. The Plymouth County action named the company, the company's Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Upstart Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provides lending partners with access to a proprietary, cloud-based, artificial intelligence lending marketplace. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Ward Shareholder Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on July 26, 2022, plaintiff in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned "Ward v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 5:22-cv-02856-BLF against the company, the company's Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer filed a notice voluntarily dismissing his lawsuit without prejudice. Said action was filed on May 13, 2022, alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Ward lawsuit claimed unspecified damages and legal fees. On July 12, 2022, motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in the Ward action. Upstart Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provides lending partners with access to a proprietary, cloud-based, artificial intelligence lending marketplace. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Zhang Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on July 11, 2022, the plaintiff in the case captioned "Zhang v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:22-cv-03668-JD filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its lawsuits without prejudice. On June 22, 2022, said class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California against the company, the company's Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, alleging, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Upstart Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries provides lending partners with access to a proprietary, cloud-based, artificial intelligence lending marketplace. UWM HOLDINGS: TOGL Antitrust Suit Ongoing in Florida Court ----------------------------------------------------------- UWM Holdings Corporation 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 currently facing a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 23, 2021, against the company and CEO and Chairman Mathew Randall Ishbia, individually by The Okavage Group, LLC on behalf of itself and all other mortgage brokers who are, or have been clients of United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC (UWM) and either Fairway Independent Mortgage or Rocket Pro TPO. After the company and Ishbia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, Okavage filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint on August 2, 2021, and on August 3, 2021, the court granted Okavage's motion and ordered the clerk to file the plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint with its corresponding attachments. In its amended complaint, Okavage dropped the company as a defendant and added UWM as a defendant. Okavage purports to represent the same set of mortgage brokers as in its original complaint and alleges that UWM's new policy to no longer enter into new transactions with Independent Mortgage Brokers who also sold mortgage loans to these two market participants amounted to anticompetitive conduct under federal and Florida antitrust laws. Okavage seeks class certification, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. The company filed a renewed motion to dismiss on September 7, 2021. On July 27, 2022, the magistrate judge assigned to consider our motion to dismiss recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. In response, Okavage filed a second amended class action complaint on November 8, 2022. On March 24, 2023, Okavage filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, which the court granted on July 18, 2023. UWM Holdings Corporation, through its consolidated subsidiaries, engages in the origination, sale and servicing of residential mortgage loans. VERRA MOBILITY: Faces Brantley Suit in Louisiana ------------------------------------------------ Verra Mobility Corporation 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 the company was named in case captioned "Brantley v. City of Gretna," a class action lawsuit filed in the 24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against the City of Gretna and the company's safety camera vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. is pending since April 2016. The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleges that the city's safety camera program was implemented and operated in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution, including that the city's hearing process violated the plaintiffs' due process rights for lack of a "neutral" arbiter of liability for traffic infractions. Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction fines paid. The city and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. appealed the trial court's ruling granting class certification, which was denied and their petition for discretionary review of the certification ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court was declined. Merits discovery in the trial court is underway. No trial date has been set. Verra Mobility Corporation offers integrated technology solutions and services by offering toll and violation management solutions for the commercial fleet and rental car industries by partnering with the leading fleet management and rental car companies. VISTRA CORP: Certification of Class Action Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- Vistra Corp. 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 in April 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on an interlocutory appeal challenging a Wisconsin court's order certifying a class action pertaining a gas index pricing litigation. Said consolidated putative class action lawsuit pending in federal court in Wisconsin claims damages resulting from alleged price manipulation through false reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications, wash trading and churn trading from 2000-2002. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices during the relevant time period and seek damages under the respective state antitrust statutes. Vistra is a holding company operating an integrated retail and electric power generation business primarily in markets throughout the U.S. Through its subsidiaries, it is engaged in competitive energy market activities including electricity generation, wholesale energy sales and purchases, commodity risk management and retail sales of electricity and natural gas to end users. WALMART INC: Wertymer Sues Over Improper Labeling of Products ------------------------------------------------------------- John Wertymer, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-14700 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 10, 2023), is brought to recover damages against the Defendant for knowingly and improperly labeling its honey products as "raw" and/or "organic." These claims are based on Walmart misleading consumers nationwide by labeling its Great Value brand honey products as "raw" and/or "organic" when, in reality, Walmart's honey is not "raw" or "organic" because Defendant adds foreign sugars to its "Organic Raw Honey" and excessively heats its "Raw Honey" during processing. Walmart's "Raw Honey" is not raw because Defendant overheats the honey during processing. The scientific community and honey industry employ a simple test--reviewing the 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) value--to determine when honey has been overheated and the enzymes destroyed. Walmart's "Organic Raw Honey" is not organic or raw because Defendant adds foreign sugars during processing. The scientific community and honey industry employ a simple test--reviewing the Mannose value--to determine if the processor added foreign sugars not suitable for honey. Walmart had actual or constructive knowledge that its honey products were not organic or raw. Despite the fact that its "Organic Raw Honey" and "Raw Honey" are not, in fact, organic or raw, Walmart advertises on the internet and labels some of its products as "Organic" and/or "Raw." Walmart mislead Plaintiff and consumers nationwide into paying premium prices for Great Value brand honey that is not organic or raw. On or about June 13, 2022, the Plaintiff purchased a bottle of Great Value "Organic Raw Honey," says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a bottle of Great Value "Raw Honey" from Walmart on June 13, 2022. Walmart, Inc., distributes a variety of honey products under its Great Value brand including "Organic Raw Honey" that is a "Product of Brazil" and "Raw Honey" that is a "Product of United States."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Matthew G. Norgard, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1006 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: (312) 606-0500 Email: clint@krislovlaw.com mnorgard@krislovlaw.com - and - Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq. KENT HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES 1056 Gage St., # 200 Winnetka, IL 60093 Phone: (847) 446-2430 Email: Heitzinger.law@gmail.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412 Great Neck, New York 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7084 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com WALT DISNEY: Shareholder Suit Disputes Disney+ Subscriber Data -------------------------------------------------------------- The Walt Disney Company 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 12, 2023, a private securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, Robert Chapek, its former Chief Financial Officer, Christine M. McCarthy, and the former Chairman of the Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution segment, Kareem Daniel on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the company. Claims include violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. Plaintiffs allege purported misstatements and omissions concerning, and a scheme to conceal, accurate costs and subscriber growth of the Disney+ platform. The Walt Disney Company is a multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate that is headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California. WELLS FARGO BANK: Miller Auto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The case is styled as Wyatt Miller, d/b/a Hellam's Tobacco and Wine Shop, Aguilar Auto Repair, LLC, individually and on, behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., The Credit Wholesale Company, Inc., Priority Technology Holdings, Inc., Priority Payment Systems, LLC, Case No. CGC23609670 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 11, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Wells Fargo -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery St., Ste. 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-986-1400 Fax: 415-986-1474 Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com - and - Myron M. Cherry, Eesq. MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC 30 N La Salle St., Ste. 2300 Chicago, IL 60602-3362 Phone: 312-372-2100 Fax: 312-853-0279 Email: mcherry@cherry-law.com YALE-NEW HAVEN: To Settle Class Action Over Retirement Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Yale-New Haven Hospital Inc. announced plans to settle a 26,000-person class action challenging the administrative fees in its $1.6 billion retirement plan. The parties on Oct. 17 told Judge Michael P. Shea they'd struck a tentative deal that they plan to submit it for court approval by Nov. 17. Their notice, filed in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut, didn't include details about the terms of the agreement. The lawsuit says the hospital's retirement plan paid excessive administrative fees of $48 per person each year, when similarly sized plans paid less than $35 for the same services. [GN] [*] Australia Sees Uptick in Class Action Filings Post-Pandemic --------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that with the volume of class action filings ticking back up post-pandemic, how much has the space grown and evolved in recent years? These lawyers weigh in. As practice areas such as cyber and environmental, social and governance (ESG) expand in the legal market, it only stands that litigation within these areas is also increasing. This is particularly prevalent in the Australian class action space, which has been called "one of the most active and profitable jurisdictions in the world". Current (and future) growth in class actions In August this year, in a market update about class action risks, BigLaw firm Allens noted that class actions filed in this calendar year are "on pace to significantly outstrip" the number of proceedings that were filed in 2022. In fact, it showed that the number of proceedings filed to 30 June 2023 is double that of last year's figures by the mid-way point of 2022 - 28 to 14. Herbert Smith Freehills global co-head of class actions and partner Jason Betts confirmed this to Lawyers Weekly – and said that class action filings would only continue moving forward. "There has been a lot of misreporting about a drop-off or decline in class actions in recent years. The truth is the class action industry is growing and increasing in sophistication and impact," he said. "In recent years, Australia has had an average of over one class action filed each week. The complexity and size of the cases is also increasing significantly -- something that few commentators are acknowledging." Clayton Utz commercial litigation partner Ross McInnes echoed this sentiment and said the landscape has evolved in a number of ways post-pandemic. "Most of the changes have stemmed from developments in class action law, largely driven by new issues arising in a procedural sense. For example, the courts and the legislature in certain jurisdictions have grappled with the regulation of litigation funders, including group cost orders. The law has also matured in its approach to resolving class actions, with the courts considering class closure and the appropriate boundaries for settlement approvals," he told Lawyers Weekly. "In addition, new categories of claims have emerged using the class action regimes. This includes claims in the ESG space, employment underpayment claims, and data privacy class actions." Particularly in the Australian market, the class actions space has increased in "sophistication and diversity of claim", added Mr Betts. "Australia has this unique combination of circumstances: a permissive. US-style class action mechanism; contingency fees for plaintiffs lawyers permissible in one jurisdiction and likely others are due course; advantageous common fund orders permitting funders to obtain a commission on aggregate settlement funds; a recent finding suggesting lawyers may also be entitled to a common fund order on a similar basis, a further advantage for plaintiffs lawyers; limited regulation of litigation funding; one of the largest rates of share ownership in the world, which increases the attractiveness of shareholder class actions; and one of the only jurisdictions in the world with both a continuous disclosure regime and strict liability for misleading and deceptive conduct," he explained. "So, this makes the Australian class action environment one of the most active and profitable jurisdictions in the world, and Australian courts are particularly sophisticated in this space. Claims are becoming more sophisticated and generally larger in scale and alleged quantum. Frequency of filings remains significant." The last few years have also seen an evolution in various funding arrangements, according to Shine Lawyers' joint head of class actions Vicky Antzoulatos and senior solicitor Riley King. "The last three years have seen the evolution of funding arrangements with the introduction of group costs orders in Victoria and the rise of solicitors common fund orders. The full court has recently sought to resolve the uncertainty of whether there is power to make a common fund orders on settlement, with the High Court's decision in Brewster still maintaining relevance," the pair told Lawyers Weekly. "Observers have also witnessed an increased appetite from respondents to go to trial in class actions." Key areas: ESG, cyber, employment and governance In King & Wood Mallesons' (KWM) annual report, The Review: Class Actions in Australia 2022/2023, consumer class actions were revealed to have dominated the market in the financial year 2023, with data breach class actions set to change the landscape moving forward. Last year, class actions filed included consumer, employment, securities, financial investments, competition and class actions against the state, such as those against detention centres and the "hard" public housing lockdowns during COVID-19. You can read Lawyers Weekly's coverage of those and other class actions here. Currently, there are at least three shareholder class actions reserved (Insignia, CBA and Brambles), according to Ms Antzoulatos and Mr King. "There have also been many appeals, with the High Court having heard the Redland City Council appeal regarding the appropriateness of levying specific special charges, the validity of a class actions waiver clause in Karpik v Carnival and having just granted special leave in Mallonland Pty Ltd v Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd. "Multiplicity continues to be a feature of the class actions space. There have been many recently, including across two courts with the Downer EDI. The privacy/cyber class actions have also been topical with proceedings against Medibank and Optus both involving multiplicity," they said. "A trend has arisen for a bifurcated settlement approval, where judges will approve the headline settlement amount but seek to scrutinise the costs or other aspects of the settlement with further evidence. There has also been the first tender process conducted by a court-appointed referee as to who will administer the settlement following approval." As Professor John Swinson of the University of Queensland told Lawyers Weekly earlier this year, cyber security threats are more dynamic than ever, and the consequential data breach class actions have broader implications for the Australian market, as reported late last year. "There has been significant growth in employment underpayment class actions recently. Adero Law has filed a series of class actions in this space, including against large companies such as Coles, Woolworths, and Merivale. In response to rising cyber concerns, data privacy claims have increased. For example, Optus and Medibank are both facing class actions following their recent cyber incidents," Mr McInnes said. "It's also interesting to see the myriad of issues being pursued in ESG-related class actions. While some claims target conduct that results in environmental harm, others focus on the accuracy of statements that entities make about their green credentials, known as ‘greenwashing' cases. Separately, some claims focus not on harm that has actually occurred but [on] the question of whether reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate climate risks or environmental damage. This rich tapestry of ESG-related class actions will likely find a voice in Australia in the coming years." But while climate and ESG-related class actions have been gaining traction for a number of years, Mr Betts said that it is not a new or growing phenomenon. "First, ESG, in large part, is not at all new. We have been talking about these kinds of risks for 30 years, but using different names. ESG is just a convenient proxy for a group of risks affecting companies [that] interface with large sections of the community – generally shareholders or customers. And the risks themselves are usually pretty conventional – failure to make accurate disclosures, misrepresenting the nature of a product or service, or imposing fees that are higher than they should be. This probably captures 80 per cent of what people mean when they raise ESG risk, and these exposures are decades old," he said. "The most significant area of growth is in governance and disclosure risk – that is, allegations that companies didn't do what they said they would do in terms of controlling risk; and companies making forecasts about the future that are said to be misleading. That remains the heart and soul of Australian class action litigation. Even in spaces that are regarded as ‘new', such as cyber security, one of the main risks is failure to disclose vulnerability to attacks or inadequacy of systems. That is a traditional shareholder class action proceeding, albeit with a slightly adjusted subject matter. So, it's important that we debunk the misapprehension that there is a radical evolution of class action claims in Australia. There is an evolution of subject matter, but the legal norms and legislation largely remain the same. "The largest and most sophisticated claims in Australia – and the ones responsible for the largest settlements – remain as they have been for many years – shareholder class actions and traditional product liability and mass tort claims (in which I include environmental toxic torts and natural disaster claims). The ‘trend', if it can be called that, is continued risk in this space." Therefore, specific cases that have had "game-changing results" are not those related to climate change or cyber security, Mr Betts opined. "The game-changing cases are those that influence significant procedural steps. Brewster and McDonald have had major impacts in determining the availability of common fund orders for funders – and potentially lawyers; AMP and Boral have had major impacts on the availability of class closure techniques in different jurisdictions; GetSwift and AMP determined how carriage motions should be conducted; BHP determined whether foreign nationals acquiring overseas can participate in an Australian shareholder class action; and a range of settlement approval cases have tested the limits of what is reasonable in a settlement in terms of returns to group members versus plaintiffs lawyers and funders," he explained. "These are the cases that will determine the profitability of class actions and whether they will settle. They are actually far more important than decisions around new causes of action for climate change impacts, or even cyber security risk, which, while very important, may unfortunately take another decade to evolve." Best practice amid ongoing developments Back in 2020, then-attorney-general Christian Porter announced his intention to proceed with a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of litigation funding on justice outcomes, exploring whether or not Australians "are receiving their fair share" from class action settlements and looking at the "extraordinary profits being made by the booming litigation funding industry". This followed a report released by the Australian Law Reform Commission on class action proceedings and third-party litigation funders, which is due to continue impacting the class action space into next year. "The federal government has started to wind back the regulation of litigation funders and will consider introducing contingency fee arrangements in the Federal Court. We expect the government to revisit all the recommendations made by the ALRC in its 2018 report concerning class actions and litigation funding," Mr McInnes added. "Given the ongoing developments, class actions are a vibrant space. Law firms and class actions experts share a lot of helpful material, including commentary on recent cases, trends and developments." In terms of future trends, Mr Betts predicted that there would be a "steady increase in class action filings" over the next five years, resulting in two class actions being filed every week in Australia. Additionally, he said that shareholder class actions are likely to return to "about 35 per cent of all claims filed in Australia" and "a drop in employment-based class actions given their modest success in Australia". Mr Betts also said there could be an "introduction of contingency fees federally, and in the meantime, several class actions commenced by law firms seeking a lawyers' common fund order" as well as the "introduction of a private cause of action for data breaches, and the steady growth of those types of claims". "Classes are now more frequently expressly defined to include foreign nationals whose cause of action is not linked in a traditional way with Australia. Class periods are larger, including in shareholder class actions where cases are focused on risk-based disclosures as much as they are earning guidance," he added. "The quantum of settlements is large and arguably increasing. The narrative that there has been some sort of drop off or stabilisation in the growth of the class action regime is not borne out by the real-life expletives of clients and lawyers who operate in the space every day." [GN] [*] Calif. Gov. Signs Bill to Prevent Automatic Litigation Stays ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spencer C. Skeen, Esq., and Zachary V. Zagger, Esq., of Ogletree Deakins, disclosed that Oct. 17 disclosed that on October 10, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that will allow plaintiffs in California to continue pursuing claims during the pendency of an appeal to an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. The law is a significant blow to employers in litigation as it could force them to continue the costly and burdensome defense of claims that should be subject to valid arbitration agreements. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that will allow litigation to continue during an appeal of a denial of a petition to compel arbitration. The law is set to take effect on January 1, 2024. California Senate Bill (SB) 365 amends the California Code of Civil Procedure to state that "the perfecting of such an appeal shall not automatically stay any proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the appeal." (Emphasis added). Under existing law Section 916 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proceedings are generally stayed in the trial court with limited exceptions until an appeal is perfected, meaning it has been fully briefed and ready to be heard by the appellate court. SB 365 is set to take effect on January 1, 2024. The law undermines the purpose of arbitration as an efficient method of alternative dispute resolution. Employers, which regularly use arbitration clauses in employment agreements, could be forced to continue defending claims from employees that are arguably subject to arbitration while they appeal a trial court's order denying arbitration. Supporters of the legislation argued that defendants have more ability to wait out delays in litigation whereas the increasing litigation costs during a postponement may be more burdensome on plaintiffs. However, business groups argued that the legislation discriminates against the use of valid arbitration agreements as it will require defendants to continue litigating many claims that are ultimately found to be subject to arbitration. Arbitration has been generally favored in federal courts. In February 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a California law that prohibited employers from requiring employees and job applicants to sign arbitration agreements that are subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) as a condition of employment. Further, the Supreme Court of the United States in June 2023 ruled that federal district courts must stay proceedings during an appeal over the question of whether the underlying claims are subject to arbitration. Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, Class Action, and California blogs. [GN] [*] PFAS Contamination Class Action v. AFFF Manufacturers Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Visual Communication Guy reports that environmental and health concerns regarding Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) have gained significant public attention recently. However, the extensive utilization of this firefighting foam has raised concerns about groundwater contamination. It arises due to the persistent presence of PFAS (forever chemicals), harmful chemicals linked to severe health problems. Responding to this alarming crisis, a groundswell of legal actions has surged, uniting affected individuals and communities. They demand accountability from the manufacturers for the dire effects of the contamination. In this article, Visual Communication Guy offers insights into AFFF class actions, covering legal foundations, alleged injuries, and potential benefits for victims. Understanding AFFF Contamination AFFF has long been praised for its unparalleled ability to suppress hazardous fires effectively. However, beneath the surface of this firefighting marvel lies a troubling concern, i.e., the contamination caused by PFAS. They are a class of synthetic chemicals in firefighting foam formulations, and their widespread use has given rise to an environmental and health crisis. When AFFF is deployed in fire emergencies, it can seep into the ground, infiltrating the soil and eventually reaching groundwater sources. This contamination poses risks not only to the environment but also to human health, as PFAS are known to be toxic and associated with various health issues. According to the USGC, over 45% of the nation's tap water contains forever chemicals. A U.S. Geological Survey study found that more than 12,000 forever chemical types exist, with 32 tested for in the study. These widespread compounds raise concerns about tap water's safety and potential health implications. Recognizing the urgency of addressing this contamination through class action lawsuits is essential to safeguard public health and the planet. The AFFF Class Action Lawsuit Explained Recently, it has become increasingly clear that firefighting foams are a major source of environmental PFAS contamination. The widespread contamination has led to several multifaceted litigation, also known as class action lawsuits against the manufacturers of these foams. Plaintiffs in these suits allege that the manufacturers knew about the dangers but failed to warn users of these risks. The class action suit is a complex case that will likely take several years to resolve. However, the outcome of this case could significantly impact the future of toxic chemical regulation and cleanup. If the plaintiffs are successful, it could lead to billions of dollars in victim compensation. In a significant AFFF lawsuit update from June 2023, a chemical manufacturer, 3M, reached a groundbreaking settlement worth $10.3 billion. This agreement resulted from legal actions filed by U.S. cities seeking accountability for contamination in their drinking water. The settlement spans 13 years and focuses on testing and cleaning up public water supplies. 3M, without admitting liability, is committed to addressing PFAS contamination for water suppliers, as The New York Times reports. AFFF Health Concerns The contamination crisis poses not only environmental threats but also dire health concerns. The litigation against fire-extinguishing foam manufacturers is driven by compelling evidence of AFFF exposure's severe health implications. Exposure to contamination can occur through drinking contaminated water, eating contaminated food, or breathing in contaminated air. It can also occur through contact with contaminated soil or groundwater. The exposure has been associated with a multitude of severe health problems. These include an increased risk of several kidney, testicular, and liver cancers. Also, it is associated with reproductive problems, developmental delays in children, weakened immune systems, thyroid issues, and an increased risk of obesity. As per a National Institute of Health study, children are particularly vulnerable to PFAS bioaccumulation and potential developmental effects. Elevated PFOA and PFOS levels in children have been linked to increased risk of high cholesterol, suppressed antibody responses, and delayed puberty. Mixed studies have been shown to decrease birth weight. Therefore, recognizing the severe health risks of exposure is pivotal, driving the expanding legal action against manufacturers. The Plaintiffs' Perspective The plaintiffs are central to this class action case, comprising individuals, communities, and environmental advocates affected by PFAS contamination. From their perspective, this legal battle is about more than just seeking compensation. It's a quest for justice, accountability, and a safer future. The plaintiffs come from a variety of backgrounds. Some are firefighters who were exposed on the job. Others are residents of communities that reside near airports, military bases, or other facilities. Still, others are people who have been diagnosed with cancer or other health problems that have been linked to the exposure. The plaintiffs are motivated by a desire to hold the responsible accountable for the harm. They also want to ensure that the contamination is cleaned up and that people are protected from future exposure. Legal Actions Against AFFF Manufacturers The legal scene surrounding this contamination has recently seen a notable increase in litigation against the manufacturers involved. These litigations reflect the determination of plaintiffs to seek justice and accountability for the damage. Legal action regarding exposure to toxic foams takes several forms. Individual cases, spanning state and federal courts, involve those affected seeking redress. Government lawsuits initiated by state and local authorities hold manufacturers accountable for PFAS cleanup. In addition, multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of South Carolina consolidates individual cases. However, as of October 2023, South Carolina's multidistrict litigation had 5,938 pending AFFF cases, as per the Consumer Notice. These legal actions are a beacon of hope for communities and individuals who have suffered from AFFF contamination. They are powerful tools for accountability and a means to drive change in the firefighting industry and environmental protection. Joining the Class Action Lawsuit Joining the class action litigation is empowering for individuals and communities affected by this contamination. This collective legal action offers a platform for those who have suffered the consequences of exposure to seek justice and compensation. Class action lawsuits offer inclusivity, uniting a diverse group of plaintiffs affected by AFFF contamination. They enable economies of scale, reducing legal costs. The collective impact and legal expertise provide a compelling front in pursuing justice and fair compensation. It sends a potent message to the manufacturers and regulators. To join a class action litigation, individuals typically need to meet certain criteria set by the court. These criteria are designed to ensure that plaintiffs share common issues. Potential Outcomes and Compensation The outcome of these cases is uncertain. However, if the plaintiffs are successful, it could lead to billions of dollars in compensation for victims. Potential outcomes and compensation in the suit encompass monetary awards for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Additionally, medical monitoring may be available to detect future health issues, and court-ordered PFAS contamination cleanup may hold manufacturers accountable. According to TorHoerman Law, victims can seek compensation for loss of enjoyment of life, permanent disability, and future medical expenses. Other potential damages include punitive compensation and loss of consortium. While compensation is vital, these lawsuits extend beyond it, promoting awareness, corporate responsibility, and a safer future. To Wrap it Up The AFFF class action lawsuit stands as a beacon of hope and justice for those who have endured the harrowing consequences of PFAS contamination. This legal battle is not just about financial compensation. It's a significant step toward accountability and a clear statement that public health and the environment must always prevail over corporate interests. In this journey, remember it's not just about your rights but a commitment to protect our planet and future generations. Joining the lawsuit, seeking accountability, and advocating for change are profound steps toward justice and safeguarding our environment. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***