/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231108.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 8, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 224 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alperstein Alleges 3M COMPANY: Doney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Gordon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Justice Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Kasper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Lederer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Wins Bid for Confidentiality in Legrand Suit ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Bradberry Suit Alleges Sex Trafficking Acts ADECCO USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alley-Gerkin Alleges ADVANCE AUTO: Faces Watson Suit Over 35% Drop of Securities Price ALLSTATE CORP: $90MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 19 AMBULANCE SERVICES: Wise Sues Over Paramedics' Unpaid Overtime AMERICAN NATIONAL: Matthews Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ATO FOODS: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Woods Suit Says BAYER HEALTHCARE: Heaghney Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri BENTLEY UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BHI ENERGY SERVICES: Rose Files Suit in D. Massachusetts BHI ENERGY: Washington Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Martin Securities Suit Over SEC Filing BROOKLYN PREMIER: Edri Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BUENA VISTA CONSTRUCTION: Hanley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALVERTON PARK, MO: Reise Files Suit in E.D. Missouri CANOO INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action CARRIER GLOBAL: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Darnis Class Suit CEVICHE TIME: Rivers Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages to Cooks CHALLENGE MFG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges CHEGG INC: Agreement Reached in Moyer Class Suit CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Keller Class Suit in California CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Stansell Class Suit in Delaware CHRONO ON FIFTH: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CLOTHING ARTS: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONVERSE UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CONVOY INC: Pfingsten Sues Over Violation of the Warn Act COREPOWER YOGA: Kang Suit Removed to C.D. California COSTCO WHOLESALE: Shah Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations CREWS CONTROL: Underpays Traffic Control Technicians, Stevens Says DATANYZE LLC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Illinois DATANYZE LLC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Ohio DEL TACO: Manisa Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensations DEVINE EMBRACE: Williams Sues Over Nursing Care Staff's Unpaid OT DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Support Animal Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. DOLLAR TREE STORES: Hill Suit Removed to N.D. California ELATE MOVING: Faces Zolotukhin Suit Over Labor Law Violations ERIE INDEMNITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York F&G ANNUITIES & LIFE: Miller Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts F.D. THOMAS INC: Salazar Suit Removed to C.D. California FIRSTCREDIT INC: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York FIRSTENERGY CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Securities Suit FLORIDA SQUEEZED: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Elder Suit Claims GOOGLE LLC: $23MM Class Settlement in Referrer Suit Has Final Nod GOURMET TECH: Faces Zanabria Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. GREAT AMERICAN: Lee Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Bid to Dismiss Pizzuto Suit Remains Pending IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Deal Pending IANTHUS CAPITAL: To Settle Blue Sky Shareholder Suit IMAGINE360 LLC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Data Breach Suit JONES LANG: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Vinas and Ruml Claim KEDRION BIOPHARMA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bannister Alleges KERN VALLEY HEALTHCARE: Benson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consumer Practices Class Suit LIVWELL PRODUCTS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Scheibe's Claim for Relief LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Consolidated Suit Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Bid LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Hebert Suit Over SEC Disclosures Ongoing MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Bishop Suit Gets Initial Nod MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Initial Nod MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Fields Suit Gets Initial Nod MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Lacy Suit Gets Initial Nod NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Collects Data Without Consent, Afriyie Says OCEAN SPRAY: Bullock Sues Over Mislabeled Cranberry Juice OCEAN SPRAY: Juice's No Preservatives Label "False," Wright Claims OHIO: District Court Dismisses Bandy v. ODRC Dir. Chambers-Smith PATHWARD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cantrell Alleges PENSION BENEFIT: Glabb Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PENSION BENEFIT: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PENSION BENEFIT: White Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PENSION BENEFIT: Williams Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PHENOMEX INC: Faces Ng Securities Suit in N.D. Cal. POWERAI CONSTRUCTION: Corrie Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois PROCTER & GAMBLE: Vent Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Decongestants PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Harris Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Pulignani Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Truesdale Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parker Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts RAS LAVRAR LLC: Rivero Suit Removed to S.D. Florida RECKITT BENCKISER: Thompson Sues Over Decongestant's False Ads RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Miller Class suit ROCKWELL COLLINS: Robledo Sues Over Labor Code Breaches RWS RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Evans Alleges S & R OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Rios Alleges SAN FRANCISCO SPCA: Nayabkhil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Gluck Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SANTE HEALTH: Sumaria Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Nurses SCWORX CORP: Court OK's Settlement of Consolidated Shareholder Suit SIMS GROUP: Sanft Wins in Part Bid for Final Settlement Approval SOUND SEAL: Maldonado Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Fabricators SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas SPIRIT AIRLINES: Dec. 11 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement Set SPLUNK INC: $30MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 22 STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Guitang Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts TED FOUNDATION: Sutton et al. Sue Over Disclosure of Private Info TRANS UNION LLC: Theodore Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia TRITON LOGISTICS: Roman Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices TTEC GOVERNMENT: Von Den Stemmen Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. TYRONE OLIVER: Butler Files Suit in S.D. Georgia UNITED STATES: 3rd Amended Complaint in Oldaker v. Giles Stricken WALMART INC: Driskill Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio WESTERN BEST: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Byars Suit WHEELING JESUIT UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA ********* 23ANDME INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alperstein Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MAX ALPERSTEIN; and ARYA SHOAEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 23ANDME, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-05541 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable security measures necessary to protect the private information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, as part of its business model, the Defendant harbors significant personally identifiable information and protected health information for countless users of its services who trust that their sensitive and private information is safe. This information includes but is not limited to sensitive genetic information, names, sex, date of birth, genetic ancestry results, profile photos and geographical information. Unfortunately, this trust is misplaced and violated when the Defendant knowingly subjects itself to the risk of cyberattacks, says the suit. On or about October 6, 2023, Defendant issued a data breach notice on its website that customer profile information was compiled from individual 23andMe.com accounts without account users' authorization that contained both the PII and PHI of its customers. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable security measures necessary to protect customers' private information. As a result of the Defendant's failure to implement and follow reasonable security procedures, the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information are now in possession of identity thieves. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered identity theft and fraud, diminished value in their sensitive information, have had to spend -- and will continue to spend -- significant amounts of time and money to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data Breach, and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit asserts. 23ANDME HOLDING CO. is a publicly held personal genomics and biotechnology company based in South San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. Valter Malkhasyan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com vmalkhasyan@clarksonlawfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Doney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph W. Doney, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05294-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Gordon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gary M. Gordon, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05296-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Justice Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Bianca Justice, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05305-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with Hashimoto's disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Kasper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Freddie Kasper, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05276-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Lederer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Lederer, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05306-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkain@awkolaw.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Wins Bid for Confidentiality in Legrand Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to retain confidentiality in the lawsuit captioned CONDALISA LEGRAND, et al., Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.). Pending before the Court is Defendant Abbott Laboratories' Motion to Retain Confidentiality, in which Abbott moves to retain the confidentiality of certain documents produced in the course of litigation. Plaintiff Condalisa LeGrand filed an opposition and Abbott filed a reply. In this putative class action, LeGrand brings claims against Abbott arising out of its advertising and sale of "nutrition" drinks under the "Ensure" brand. LeGrand argues that various health and wellness representations on the Ensure nutrition drink labels and in Abbott's marketing are false and misleading because they suggest the nutrition drinks are balanced, nutritious, and healthy, when in fact the products contain harmful levels of sugar. The Court entered a stipulated protective order ("Protective Order") on June 8, 2023. The protective order allows parties and non-parties to designate information or items for protection by marking them "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL." The Protective Order defines "CONFIDENTIAL" information or items as "information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)." "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" information or items is defined as "extremely sensitive 'CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items,' disclosure of which to a Non-Party may create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means." A party may challenge a confidentiality designation by "providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and describing the basis for each challenge." "If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court intervention, the Designating Party shall file and serve a motion to retain confidentiality under Civil Local Rule 7." On Aug. 4, 2023, Abbot produced six documents labeled as Bates Nos. Abbott-Ensure-00000106 - Abbott-Ensure-00000136; Abbott-Ensure-00000137 – Abbott-Ensure-00000181; Abbott-Ensure-00000182 - Abbott-Ensure-00000275; Abbott-Ensure-00000276 - Abbott-Ensure-00000314; Abbott-Ensure-00000315 - Abbott-Ensure-00000351; and Abbott-Ensure-00000352 - Abbott-Ensure-00000378 (the "Core Claims Documents"). Abbott designated each of these documents as "Highly Confidential" under the Protective Order. On Aug. 14, 2023, LeGrand initiated a challenge to Abbott's designation of these documents, except for Bates No. Abbott-Ensure-00000135; Abbott-Ensure-00000173; and Abbott-Ensure-00000176; Abbott-Ensure-00000180; Abbott-Ensure-00000337; Abbott-Ensure-00000369; Abbott-Ensure-00000376. On Aug. 28, 2023, counsel for the parties met and conferred via telephone conference to attempt to resolve the dispute information but were unable to reach a resolution. Abbott argues that it will suffer particularized harm if the six Core Claims Documents are disclosed to the public because they were compiled for the deliberate purpose of supporting Abbott's label and promotional materials. The Core Claims Documents identify claims regarding Ensure products' efficacy, safety, tolerability, or use prepared for Ensure promotional materials and labeling. Abbott argues, among other things, that it distinguishes itself from competitors by way of this extensive substantiation process and that competitors would be able to use the information contained in the Core Claims Documents and make the same claims for their own products. Marketing Director Meaghan Bird represents that Abbott differentiates itself from competitors by employing large numbers of subject matter experts to evaluate product claims. The Court finds sufficiently specific that Abbott's substantiation efforts provide it a competitive advantage, and that release of the documents containing this information would provide its competitors the ability to apply the same research to make similar claims. Ms. LeGrand argues that Abbott's identified harm is speculative because Abbot does not identify any relevant competitors. In its Reply, Abbott identifies at least one competitor, who has not made comparable marketing claims and, therefore, could benefit from Abbott's information. By identifying a competitor, who has not made the same claims as Abbott, and arguing that its own analysis and research is superior to its competitors, Judge Hixson opines that Abbott's distinguishes these circumstances from those in Noble v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 114CV01963DADEPG, 2017 WL 531883, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017). Abbott argues here that its substantiation process and substantive research and analysis provide it a competitive edge. In sum, Judge Hixson finds that Abbott has identified a particular harm that will result from disclosure of its substantiation analysis. The Court's conclusion that Abbott has identified specific harm as to the research and analysis performed to substantiate its marketing claims does not cover the entirety of the documents. In her Opposition, LeGrand identifies numerous pages in the contested documents which she argues do not contain the kind of information Abbott argues would subject it to competitive harm. Some pages list only the names of Abbott employees. Some pages provide nutritional labels. Some pages state product claims but provide no details as to the underlying research or analysis in substantiating them. Abbott notably does not address LeGrand's argument that many of the document pages do not contain the kind of information it argues warrants protection. The Court agrees with LeGrand that many pages of the relevant documents do not include the information Abbott identifies as harmful if disclosed. Based on Abbott's articulation of specific, competitive harm due to its research and analysis substantiating its product marketing, the parties' agreement that Abbott's product formulation merits protection, and the Court's review of the documents, the Court finds Abbott has identified specific harm under the first prong of analysis for the following: Bates Nos. Abbott-Ensure-00000106, 00000109-29, 00000132, 00000135, 00000140-70, 00000173, 00000176, 00000177, 00000180, 00000182, 00000186-269, 00000271-75, 00000282-84, 00000286-87, 00000291-92, 00000296-97, 00000301, 00000306, 00000308, 00000310, 00000312, 00000315, 00000318-29, 00000337, 00000340-50, 00000355-63, 00000369-70, 00000376-78. The Court next balances the public and private interests to decide whether maintaining a protective order is necessary. The Ninth Circuit has adopted seven factors to consider in such an analysis. The Court has already addressed Abbott's privacy interests, and the parties limit their arguments to the fourth and seventh factors -- whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety and whether the case involves issues important to the public. The Court agrees with LeGrand that this case implicates issues of public health pertaining to potentially harmful levels of added sugar in products claiming to be healthful. That the case more broadly involves public health issues is not a determination that the information at-issue involves important public health concerns meriting disclosure. The information detailed in the documents certainly relates to the health of the products, but that the information relates to health is not the same as determining that it is important to public health, and LeGrand does not particularly connect her theory that products are misleading based on the harmful levels of sugar with any information contained in the documents. Largely, Judge Hixson notes, LeGrand's argument that important public health issues are implicated appears to be an argument that the documents will be relevant to her theory of liability. While the documents may become relevant to determination of this case, the Court does not find the relevance to Abbott's potential defenses or LeGrand's false advertising claim to be a pertinent inquiry for documents not being filed in connection with any dispositive motion. Were the challenged materials proffered on an issue relevant to Abbott's liability the Court may well find disclosure merited. At this juncture, essentially in a vacuum, the information does not appear "important" to the public or public health beyond its potential importance to the Parties' legal claims and defenses. At present, the Court finds Abbott's privacy interests outweigh the references to public health and finds the document pages detailed here merit protection under Rule 26(c). The Protective Order distinguishes between a "Highly Confidential" "and Confidential" designation. "Highly Confidential" information or items is defined as "extremely sensitive 'CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items,' disclosure of which to a Non-Party may create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means." While the Court determines that Abbott's substantiation research and analysis meets the criteria of Rule 26(c) and, thus, merits the "Confidential" designation under the Protective Order, the Court does not find that Abbott sufficiently identifies a "substantial risk of serious harm," beyond the product formulations both Parties agree should be afforded protection. While Abbott identifies that current competitors might be able to make comparable marketing claims if given access to Abbott's research synthesis and analysis, Judge Hixson finds that Abbott does not provide sufficient detail or certainty as to the degree or depth of the harm for the Court to conclude the substantiation information is "extremely sensitive" nor that there is "serious harm" at risk. Thus, the Court finds the product formulation information, Abbott-Ensure-00000106; Abbott-Ensure-00000135; Abbott-Ensure-00000173; Abbott-Ensure-00000176; Abbott-Ensure-00000177; Abbott-Ensure-00000180; Abbott-Ensure-00000337; Abbott-Ensure-00000363; Abbott-Ensure-00000369; Abbott-Ensure-00000360; Abbott-Ensure-00000376, is properly designated as "Highly Confidential," but that the remaining substantiation information should be deemed "Confidential." Accordingly, Judge Hixson rules that Abbott's Motion to Retain Confidentiality is granted in part and denied in part. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2czw2x68 from PacerMonitor.com. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Bradberry Suit Alleges Sex Trafficking Acts ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID BRADBERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO.; MICHAEL S. JEFFRIES; MATTHEW SMITH; and THE JEFFRIES FAMILY OFFICE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09440 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023) alleges Defendant Abercrombie's participation and intentional involvement in a widespread sex-trafficking operation led by its CEO, Defendant Jeffries, as well as the direct financial benefits it received therefrom, in violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act. According to the complaint, Abercrombie's crucial support allowed Jeffries to successfully rape, sexually assault, and coercively sex traffic David Bradberry, Barret Pall, and the numerous other members of the Class. Abercrombie also knew that Jeffries, while acting in the course and scope of his employment and on behalf of the company, used means of force, threats of force, fraud, abuse of legal process, exploitation of power disparity, and a variety of other forms of fraud and coercion to cause young men to engage in commercial sex acts, the suit alleges. Knowing that it would earn millions of dollars in exchange for facilitating Jeffries's sex abuse and trafficking, Abercrombie chose profits over following the law. Specifically, Abercrombie chose participating in and facilitating the sex-trafficking conspiracy for many years to keep its sexually abusive CEO at the helm and to churn profit, asserts the suit. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. operates as a stores and conducts direct-to-consumer operations. The Company sells casual sportswear apparel, including knit and woven shirts, graphic t-shirts, fleece, jeans and woven pants, shorts, sweaters and outerwear, personal care products, and accessories for men, women, and kids. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS HENDERSON LEHRMAN 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 Email: brad@cvlf.com - and - Brittany N. Henderson, Esq. 145 East 15th Street, Unit 10E New York, NY Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2820 Email: brittany@cvlf.com ADECCO USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alley-Gerkin Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH ALLEY-GERKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADECCO USA, INC.; and BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV26333 (Cal., Sup., Los Angeles County, Oct. 27, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a staff employee. ADECCO USA, INC. provides recruiting and workforce solutions. The Company offers permanent recruiting, temporary staffing, career advisory, and resource center services. Adecco serves customers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcia Guzman, Esq. Victoria Tokar, Esq. GUZMAN & TOKAR LLP 440 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 1354 Covina, CA 91723 Telephone: (626) 427-7128 Facsimile: (213) 342-6329 Email: serviceaguzmanandtokar.com ADVANCE AUTO: Faces Watson Suit Over 35% Drop of Securities Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN M. WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., THOMAS R. GRECO, and JEFFREY W. SHEPHERD, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00611-FL (E.D.N.C., October 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Advance Auto Parts' (AAP) business operations and financial prospects in order to trade AAP's securities at artificially inflated prices between November 16, 2022, and May 30, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that they: (1) misrepresented the efficacy of AAP's strategic pricing initiative and the impact of price reductions; (2) omitted and/or concealed the negative impacts of the pricing initiative; (3) provided investors with an overly optimistic perception of AAP's operations; and (4) created the false impression that inflation and macroeconomic factors had an insubstantial impact on the company's margins. When the truth emerged, AAP shares lost $39.31 in one day, reflecting a 35 percent one day drop from close on May 30, 2023 to close on May 31, 2023, the suit alleges. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider, with its principal executive offices at 4200 Six Forks Road, Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Schiller, Esq. SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC 304 East Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 789-4677 Facsimile: (919) 789-4469 E-mail: David@SchillerFirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com ALLSTATE CORP: $90MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 16-cv-10510 CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION FROM OCTOBER 29, 2014 THROUGH AUGUST 3, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that Lead Plaintiffs Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund for Northern California (together, "Northern California Carpenters") and named plaintiff City of Providence (together with Northern California Carpenters, "Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the certified Class, and Defendants The Allstate Corporation ("Allstate"), Thomas J. Wilson, and Matthew E. Winter (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a settlement of the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $90,000,000 (the "Settlement Amount"), which, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Courtroom 1703 at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 at 1:30 p.m. on December 19, 2023 to, among other things, determine whether: (1) the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class; (2) the Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and any interest thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (3) the Court should approve the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than 25% of the Settlement Fund and payment of Litigation Expenses of no more than $4,600,000 from the Settlement Fund, which may include an application pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") for the reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) of Class Representatives directly related to their representation of the Class. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING THE RELEASES PROVIDED FOR THEREIN, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting the case website: Allstate Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173121 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Tel: (877) 829-4143 info@allstatesecuritieslitigation.com www.AllstateSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries may also be made to Class Counsel: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Thomas G. Hoffman, Jr., Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (888) 219-6877 settlementquestions@labaton.com www.labaton.com If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or electronically submitted no later than February 8, 2024. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice, such that they are received no later than November 28, 2023. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: October 25, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AMBULANCE SERVICES: Wise Sues Over Paramedics' Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- NEIL WISE and JILL WISE, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMBULANCE SERVICES OF FORREST CITY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00213-LP (E.D. Ark., October 19, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Neil Wise as a Paramedic from approximately December of 2021 until approximately September of 2022. Among other things, the Defendant violated the FLSA and AMWA by not including all forms of compensation, such the non-discretionary bonuses of Plaintiffs and other hourly employees, in their regular rate when calculating their overtime pay, says the suit. Ambulance Services of Forrest City is a domestic limited liability company, registered and licensed to do business in the State of Arkansas. Its primary business is providing emergency medical services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean Short, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com AMERICAN NATIONAL: Matthews Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Madelaine Matthews, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American National Group, LLC d/b/a American National Insurance Company, American National Insurance Company, BAMR US Holdings LLC, BAMR US Holdings (Bermuda) I Ltd., BAM Re Holdings Ltd., Brookfield Reinsurance Ltd., Case No. 3:23-cv-00295 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12515-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. American National -- https://www.americannational.com/ -- offers personalized insurance coverage for life, home, business, auto and much more.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 The Defendants are represented by: Margaret Hope Allen, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 981-3300 Fax: (214) 981-3400 Email: margaret.allen@sidley.com ATO FOODS: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Woods Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- NATIA WOODS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATO FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01311 (W.D. Tex., October 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to reimburse the automobile expenses of the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver from approximately July 2020 to November 2022 at Pizza Hut stores located in Texas and Arkansas. ATO Foods, LLC is an operator of numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores throughout the United States, including Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com JPavlos@forthepeople.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Heaghney Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Heaghney, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Corporation, Johnson & Johnson Holdco (NA), Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, The Procter & Gamble Company, Walmart, Inc., Walgreen Co., Target Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Dierbergs Markets, Inc., Price Chopper Foods, Incorporated, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Does 1-20, Case No. 4:22-cv-01657, was removed from the Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Oct. 25, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01342 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Bayer -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- is a German multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defednants are represented by: Adrienne L. Byard, Esq. SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 474-6550 Fax: (816) 421-5547 Email: abyard@shb.com BENTLEY UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bentley University. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bentley University, Case No. 1:23-cv-09343-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University of Indianapolis -- https://uindy.edu/ -- is a private United Methodist Church-affiliated university in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal BHI ENERGY SERVICES: Rose Files Suit in D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BHI Energy Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Richard Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BHI Energy Services, LLC, BHI Energy I Specialty Services LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-12513 (D. Mass., Oct. 24, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. BHI Energy -- https://www.bhienergy.com/ -- provides project management & staffing support to the nuclear, fossil, wind, hydro and government energy markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 S. Main St., 3rd Flr. West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 Fax: (860) 920-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com BHI ENERGY: Washington Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------- LASHAWNTAE A. WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BHI ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and BHI ENERGY I SPECIALTY SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12577-LTS (D. Mass., October 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within their network servers following a data breach discovered on June 29, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII/PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. BHI Energy Services LLC is a provider of specialty services and staffing solutions, with its principal place of business at 97 Libbey Industrial Parkway, Weymouth, Massachusetts. BHI Energy I Specialty Services, LLC is a provider of specialty services and staffing solutions, with its principal place of business at 2005 Newpoint Parkway, Suite 200, Lawrenceville, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Martin Securities Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------ BioXcel Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on July 7, 2023, plaintiff Katelyn Martin filed a class action complaint against the company and certain executives in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned "Martin v. BioXcel Therapeutics, et al.," 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn). The complaints generally allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on certain public statements related to the development of BXCL501, TRANQUILITY II and TRANQUILITY III between December 15, 2021 and June 28, 2023. BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company utilizing artificial intelligence approaches to develop transformative medicines in neuroscience and immuno-oncology, focused on reducing therapeutic development costs and potentially accelerate timelines. BROOKLYN PREMIER: Edri Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Premier Orthopedics and Pain Management PLLC. The case is styled as Caroline Edri, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Premier Orthopedics and Pain Management PLLC doing business as: Brooklyn Premier Orthopedics, Case No. 1:23-cv-07943 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Brooklyn Premier Orthopedics -- https://bportho.com/ -- provides acupuncture, traditional pain management, physical therapy, related surgeries, and post-surgery care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason Adams Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com BUENA VISTA CONSTRUCTION: Hanley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buena Vista Construction Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin Anthony Hanley, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Buena Vista Construction Group, Inc., Case No. 23CV010358 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 24, 2023). Buena Vista Construction -- https://www.buenavistaconstructioncompany.com/ -- offers residential and commercial building construction, design, planning, renovation, and remodeling services.[BN] CALVERTON PARK, MO: Reise Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Calverton Park, Missouri, et al. The case is styled as Christina Lynn Reise, Alan Miller, Sharon Jones, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated persons v. City of Calverton Park, Missouri; Sean Gibbons, in his individual capacity; Case No. 4:23-cv-01335-SEP (E.D. Mo., Oct. 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Calverton Park -- https://calvertonparkmo.municipalimpact.com/ -- is a city in St. Louis County, Missouri, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Hanlon, Esq. Nicholas D. Wanger, Esq. Lee Robinson Camp, Esq. ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 361-8834 Email: mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org nwanger@archcitydefenders.org lcamp@ArchCityDefenders.org CANOO INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Canoo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that it is currently facing a consolidated class action suit on behalf of individuals who purchased or acquired shares of the company's stock during a specified period. Through the complaint, plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. The company has filed a pending motion to dismiss the complaints. On April 2, 2021 and April 9, 2021, the company was named as a defendant in putative class action complaints filed in California. On February 28, 2023, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On March 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint. On March 23, 2023, the court entered a stipulated order setting a briefing schedule on the company's anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On April 10, 2023, the court entered a stipulated order granting the lead plaintiff leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint and relieving defendants of any obligation to respond to the second amended consolidated complaint. Under the April 10, 2023 order, within 14 days of the release of any order regarding a settlement between the company and the SEC, the parties shall confer and jointly submit a proposed schedule for the filing of any third amended consolidated complaint and for the filing of the defendant's response to the third amended consolidated complaint. Canoo Inc. is a mobility technology company into electric vehicles development. CARRIER GLOBAL: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Darnis Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Carrier Global Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut's dismissal of the Darnis class suit with prejudice on August 3, 2023. On August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Carrier, Otis Worldwide Corporation ("Otis"), the former members of the UTC Board of Directors and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.). The Complaint challenged the method by which UTC equity awards were converted to UTC, Carrier and Otis equity awards following the Separation and the Distribution. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on September 13, 2021 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint, with Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Carrier and Otis as the only defendants, asserted that the defendants are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Amended Complaint also sought specific performance. The Company believes all plaintiffs' claims against it are without merit. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2022, the court dismissed the case against all defendants, with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On August 3, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling. Carrier Global Corporation is a provider of building and cold chain solutions based in Florida. CEVICHE TIME: Rivers Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages to Cooks ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTIAN RIVERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff v. CEVICHE TIME, LLC (DBA CEVICHE TIME BY MAICELO) and LUIS BARRIOS, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-21277 (D.N.J., October 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff's minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its restaurant located at 4538 Bergenline Ave, Union City, NJ, from on or about April 22, 2022, until June 28, 2022, and again, from November 28, 2022, until September 23, 2023, as a kitchen cook. However, Plaintiff was not compensated at least the overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Among other things, Plaintiff was also not provided with accurate wage statements, says the suit. Headquartered in Union City, NJ, Ceviche Time, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.stillmanlegalpc.com CHALLENGE MFG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- DAWAN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHALLENGE MFG. HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case NO. 1:23-cv-01132 (W.D. Mich., Oct. 26, 2023) to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as a staff employee. CHALLENGE MFG. HOLDINGS, INC. manufactures automotive parts. The Company supplies welded assemblies and engineered metal formed products to the automotive industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com CHEGG INC: Agreement Reached in Moyer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Chegg Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2023 that the Moyer consumer class suit's dismissal is in process in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California after both parties resolved the issue by agreement. On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff Sheri Moyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative consumer class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 22-cv-09123) on behalf of all purchasers of a Chegg product or service as part of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer within the past four years. On July 25, 2023, the Company received an order granting its motion to compel arbitration, and the case will be stayed pending arbitration. The Company and Plaintiff have resolved this matter by agreement and dismissal is in process. Chegg, Inc. is a provider of online research tools, tutoring services, textbook rentals and other educational resources.[BN] CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Keller Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Chegg Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Keller class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff Joshua Keller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 22-cv-06986) on behalf of individuals whose data was allegedly impacted by past data breaches. On August 15, 2023, the Company received an order granting its motion to compel arbitration, and the case will be stayed and administratively closed pending the conclusion of arbitration, if Plaintiff decides to pursue arbitration. The Company disputes Plaintiff's claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter should it continue. Chegg, Inc. is a provider of online research tools, tutoring services, textbook rentals and other educational resources.[BN] CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Stansell Class Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- Chegg Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Stansell class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff Brian Stansell, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated stockholders of Chegg, filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0180) on behalf of all Chegg stockholders who were eligible to vote at Chegg's 2022 Annual Stockholders' Meeting, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against the members of Chegg's Board. The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Chegg, Inc. is a provider of online research tools, tutoring services, textbook rentals and other educational resources.[BN] CHRONO ON FIFTH: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chrono On Fifth, LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Troche, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chrono On Fifth, LLC d/b/a Chronostore.Com, Case No. 1:23-cv-09406-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chrono On Fifth, LLC doing business as Chronostore.Com -- https://chronostore.com/ -- buys sells and trades Luxury Watches & Jewelry Located on Fifth Ave in Midtown Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bennitta Lisa Joseph, Esq. Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 406-6890 Email: bennittaj@gmail.com jon@norinsberglaw.com CLOTHING ARTS: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clothing Arts, Ltd. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Clothing Arts, Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-09319-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clothing Arts -- https://www.clothingarts.com/ -- produces a line of clothing that is "pick pocket proof". Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CONVERSE UNIVERSITY: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Converse University. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Converse University, Case No. 1:23-cv-09410 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Converse -- https://www.converse.edu/ -- is a private SC university providing a distinctive co-ed, liberal arts education, innovative graduate programs and doctoral studies.[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 CONVOY INC: Pfingsten Sues Over Violation of the Warn Act --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Pfingsten, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONVOY, INC., a Washington Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01629 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 25, 2023), is brought on behalf of himself, and 500 similarly situated former employees of Defendant who were terminated in mass layoffs for which Defendant was required to provide 60 days advanced written notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"). On October 19, 2023, Defendant announced that it was discontinuing its core operations and terminated Plaintiff and Class Members who worked at or reported to Defendant's Seattle, Washington facility without providing them with 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the Warn Act. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover from Defendant 60 days wages and benefits, and reasonable attorney's fees and the costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Customer Account Specialist from September 2021 until his termination on October 19, 2023, at Defendant's Seattle location. The Defendant operated as a digital freight broker that connects shippers and carriers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600 Tacoma WA 98402 Phone: (206) 707-9366 Fax: (310) 295-2385 COREPOWER YOGA: Kang Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Clemens D. Kang, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COREPOWER YOGA LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; KADA O'CONNOR, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21870 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. 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09054. The Plaintiff alleges: "for at least one (1) year prior to the filing of this Action and continuing to the present, Defendants have, at times, failed to furnish Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, with itemized wage statements that accurately reflect gross wages earned; total hours worked; net wages earned; all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate; the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; the name and address of the entity securing the services of the farm labor contractor who employed Plaintiff and Class Members; and other such information as required by Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Eric E. Suits, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 Email: eric.suits@ogletree.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Shah Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- SAFIYYAH SHAH individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-21286 (D.N.J., October 19, 2023) arises from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as hourly-paid supervisor since November 2020, and worked as a non-exempt, hourly paid supervisor for Defendant at its distribution center in Newark, NJ from approximately May 2022 to June 2023. However, the Defendant failed to record or compensate the hours worked by hourly-paid supervisors before their shifts, including unlocking and opening gates, deactivating alarms, and conducting security sweeps, the Plaintiff says. Headquartered in Issaquah, WA, Costco Wholesale Corporation operates a chain of membership-only big-box retail stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com CREWS CONTROL: Underpays Traffic Control Technicians, Stevens Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREWS CONTROL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01863-NBF (W.D. Pa., October 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a traffic control technician/flagger. Crews Control, LLC is a traffic control company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com DATANYZE LLC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- Datanyze LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from right of publicity violation class suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On February 10, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Datanyze, LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging Datanyze's use of Illinois residents' names in a free trial violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The case is now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division). The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Datanyze is the leader in technographics -- real-time insights based on a company's technology choices and buying signals. DATANYZE LLC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- Datanyze LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ohio Right of Publicity Statute violation class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On March 8, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Datanyze, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging Datanyze's use of Ohio residents names in a free trial violates the Ohio Right of Publicity Statute, and seeking statutory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Datanyze is the leader in technographics -- real-time insights based on a company's technology choices and buying signals. DEL TACO: Manisa Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensations -------------------------------------------------------------- Fatih "Brian" Manisa, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. DEL TACO LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV25840 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 as a result of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff proper compensations. The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest and meal periods in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code, and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations Title 8; failed to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations; failed to pay all wages earned on time in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse necessary, business related expenses in violation of Labor Code; failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation of Labor Code; employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from August 24, 2022 until August 08, 2023. DEL TACO LLC is a California Limited Liability Company, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Melissa Robinson, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com melissa@hbklawyers.com DEVINE EMBRACE: Williams Sues Over Nursing Care Staff's Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOMEKA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEVINE EMBRACE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC and VIOLET IDOKOGO, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-04102 (S.D. Tex., October 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a staff employee. Devine Embrace Health Services, LLC is a provider of specialized nursing care, with its principal office located at 9894 Bissonnet Street, Suite 312, Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Support Animal Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Support Animal Holdings, LLC, Lennys Casita, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Discover Financial Services, DFS Services LLC, Discover Bank, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-07131 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 25, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-15297 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Discover Financial Services -- https://www.discover.com/ -- is an American financial services company that owns and operates Discover Bank, an online bank that offers checking and savings accounts, personal loans, home equity loans, student loans and credit cards.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 692-8883 Email: lesley@portnoylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: 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 DOLLAR TREE STORES: Hill Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicole Hill, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV422347 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05476. The Complaint asserts nine putative class action causes of action for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay sick leave; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay all wages upon termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements; violating Labor Code section 212; and unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elena R. Baca, Esq. Jennifer Milazzo, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 Email: elenabaca@paulhastings.com jennifermilazzo@paulhastings.com - and - Ryan D. Derry, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 Email: ryanderry@paulhastings.com ELATE MOVING: Faces Zolotukhin Suit Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEKSEI ZOLOTUKHIN, Plaintiff v. ELATE MOVING NETWORK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-09197 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2023) is a class action seeking remedies for the Defendant's violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. In February 2023, Defendant Elate Moving Network LLC hired Plaintiff Aleksei Zolotukhin to work as a foreman/mover. However, the Defendant did not provide Plaintiff any wage notice or similar document at the time of hiring or at any point thereafter informing him of his regular rate of pay and overtime rate of pay. In addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay minimum wage or overtime compensation in the lawful amount for all hours worked in excess of the maximum hours provided for in the FLSA and the NYLL. Elate Moving Network LLC is a foreign limited liability company doing business in New York and maintains business premises at 193 6th Street, Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Indemnity Company. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Erie Indemnity Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-09346-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ERIE -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- sells auto, home, business and life insurance through independent agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com F&G ANNUITIES & LIFE: Miller Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jordan A. Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. F&G Annuities & Life, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00326 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12485-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. -- https://www.fglife.com/ -- is a public company headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian O. Marty, Esq. J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Phone: (515) 223-4567 Fax: (515) 223-8887 Email: marty@sagwlaw.com F.D. THOMAS INC: Salazar Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Osvaldo Salazar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. F.D. THOMAS, INC., an Arizona Corporation; ARSC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2323213 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02206. The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action asserted the following causes of action: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kent J. Sprinkle, Esq. Desiree J. Ho, Esq. Taylor Wendland, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 740 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (858) 646-0007 Email: ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com dho@cdflaborlaw.com twendland@cdflaborlaw.com FIRSTCREDIT INC: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstCredit, Inc. The case is styled as Esther Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FirstCredit, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-09400-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. First Credit Services -- https://www.firstcreditonline.com/ -- is a Leading Debt Collection Agency with over 25 years of experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com FIRSTENERGY CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that discovery is ongoing for the consolidated securities class suit. In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio); on July 28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order. Discovery is ongoing. FirstEnergy Corp., through its subsidiaries, provides various electric utility services in the United States. The Company is based in Akron, Ohio. FLORIDA SQUEEZED: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Elder Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIAH ELDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA SQUEEZED, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-020350 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 26, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. FLORIDA SQUEEZED, LLC sells sunscreen, lotion, and beauty products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com GOOGLE LLC: $23MM Class Settlement in Referrer Suit Has Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants the motion for final approval of class action settlement and motions for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards in the lawsuit titled In re GOOGLE REFERRER HEADER PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 5:10-cv-04809-EJD (N.D. Cal.). Pending before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs; and Former Objectors Melissa Holyoak and Theodore H. Frank's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. On Oct. 12, 2023, the Court heard oral arguments from the parties on all three motions. No objectors were present. Having considered the motions briefing, terms of the Settlement, objections and responses thereto, arguments of counsel, and other matters on file in this action, the Court grants the motion for final approval. The Court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The provisional appointments of the class representatives and class counsel are confirmed. The Court also grants both Class Counsel and Former Objectors' requests for attorneys' fees and other costs. The matter is a consolidated internet privacy litigation brought by Representative Plaintiffs Paloma Gaos, Anthony Italiano, and Gabriel Priyev (collectively, "Plaintiffs") against Defendant Google, LLC, for allegedly disclosing users' private personal information to third parties. The Court previously granted final approval to an all-cy pres $8.5 million class action settlement in this case on March 31, 2015 ("Prior Final Approval Order"). Former Objectors Melissa Holyoak and Theodore H. Frank ("Former Objectors") appealed the Order on the grounds that the cy pres component was improper. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of final approval (In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig., 869 F.3d 737 (9th Cir 2017)). Former Objectors, then, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted (Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019)). The Supreme Court remanded the case for this Court to re-analyze standing in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016). The Supreme Court did not consider the merits of Former Objectors' cy pres arguments. On remand, the Court confirmed that the Plaintiffs still had standing for their federal claims in light of Spokeo. The Court also found that the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged standing for the state-law claims that the Court previously dismissed. On March 29, 2012, the Court denied Google's first motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' the federal claim but granted Google's motion as to their state law claims with leave to amend, finding that they failed to sufficiently plead standing (Gaos v. Google Inc., No. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD, 2012 WL 1094646 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012)). The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and Google filed another motion to dismiss, but before this Court made its ruling on Google's motion to dismiss, the parties stipulated to the consolidation of Gaos and Italiano's case with another class action, and the Plaintiffs filed the now-operative Consolidated Complaint. The motion to dismiss was, therefore, terminated as moot. The parties reached their first settlement shortly thereafter. The parties re-negotiated a settlement, and on May 25, 2023, the Court granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which increased the settlement fund to $23 million, certified a settlement class, and appointed counsel. The Settlement defines the class ("the Settlement Class") as: All Persons in the United States who submitted a search query to Google and clicked on a search result at any time during the period commencing on Oct. 25, 2006, up to and including Sept. 30, 2013. The Settlement Class excludes: (i) Google, its subsidiaries and affiliates, officers, and directors; (ii) the judge(s) to whom these cases are or have been assigned and any member of the judges' staff or judges' immediate family; (iii) Persons who have settled with and released Google from individual claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Consolidated Complaint; (iv) Persons who submit a valid and timely Request for Exclusion pursuant to Section 7; and (v) Class Counsel. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified the Settlement Class and provisionally appointed Kassra Nassiri of Nassiri & Jung LLP, Michael Aschenbrener of KamberLaw, LLC, and Mark Bulgarelli of Progressive Law Group as Class Counsel, Plaintiffs Paloma Gaos, Anthony Italiano, and Gabriel Priyev as Class Representatives, and Kroll Notice Media Solutions ("Kroll Media") as the Class Administrator. The Court received two written objections to the settlement from Boyd Adams and Clifford Weiler -- Letter from Boyd John Adams: Objection to Release of Personal Information ("Adams Objection"), and Letter re Objection from Clifford Donald Weiler ("Weiler Objection"). Under the terms of the Settlement, Google will pay $23 million into a common settlement fund, without admitting liability. This amount includes attorneys' fees and costs, the cost of class notice and settlement administration, and the Class Representatives' service award. In exchange for the settlement awards, the Settlement Class will release claims against Google as set forth in the Settlement at Section 12. The Settlement provides that the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court seeking a reasonable proportion of the Settlement Fund as payment of any reasonable attorneys' fees and costs ("Fee Award"). The Fee Award will be paid as part of the Settlement Fund specified in Paragraph 3.2. It is not a condition of this Settlement that any particular amount of attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, or service awards be approved by the Court, or that such fees, costs, expenses or awards be approved at all. Google expressly reserves the right to oppose the motion seeking a Fee, Cost, and Expense Award. The Settlement allows Plaintiffs to seek up to $5,000 to be paid to Named Plaintiffs as an incentive award. After deductions from the common fund for fees, costs, and service incentive awards, the Settlement Class will be paid according to an equal pro rata basis. Participating Settlement Class members yield an average recovery of approximately $7.16 per class member. The Settlement provides that no amount will revert to Google. The final Settlement also provides for injunctive relief, whereby Google agrees to maintain certain disclosures concerning search inquiries on Google's FAQ webpage. The Settlement provides that if, despite the best efforts of the Settlement Administrator, a residual amount remains after distribution (for example, because claims contain erroneous payment information that cannot be corrected), all remaining funds shall be distributed pro rata to timely Claimants. If the cost of fairly distributing the remaining balance exceeds the balance available to be distributed, the remaining balance will be paid to the Residual Cy Pres Recipient as a Residual Settlement Payment. The Settlement does not provide a cy pres recipient, but it provides that the entity will be "selected by the Parties' mutual agreement." Class Counsel indicated at oral arguments on Oct. 12, 2023, that they have selected World Privacy, the same cy pres recipient identified in the first settlement. The Settlement is being administered by Kroll Media. Following the Court's preliminary approval and conditional certification of settlement, the Class Administrator implemented the Notice Plan. The Class Administrator also established a settlement website (the "Settlement Website") at www.referrerheadersettlement.com, including the settlement notices, the procedures for Settlement Class members to submit claims or exclude themselves, a contact information page that includes address and telephone numbers for the claim administrator and the parties, the Settlement, the signed order of preliminary approval, claim form, and exclusion. The Class Administrator also operated a toll-free number for Settlement Class member inquiries. This Notice Plan reached 83% of potential Settlement Class members. Settlement Class members were given until July 31, 2023, to object to or exclude themselves from the Settlement. Out of the estimated total population of 193 million Settlement Class members, 2,530 persons filed timely requests to opt out of the Settlement Class. A total of 2,564,682 claims were received by the Class Administrator. Based on the discussion in this Order, the Court finds that the terms of the Settlement, including the awards of attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, is fair, adequate, and reasonable; that it satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the fairness and adequacy factors; and that it should be approved and implemented. Judge Davila rules that the Motion for Final Approval is granted. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted. Class Counsel is awarded $5,750,000 in attorneys' fees and $43,634.69 in litigation costs. Named Plaintiffs Gaos, Italiano, and Priyev are granted an incentive award of $5,000 each. Former Objectors' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted. Former Objectors' counsel is awarded $793,500. The Clerk will close this file upon entry of Judgment. Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of this Order and the Settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtzhwtvp from PacerMonitor.com. GOURMET TECH: Faces Zanabria Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUE ZANABRIA and WILMER VELASCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOURMET TECH CORP d/b/a MARCHE MADISON, MADISON GOURMET LTD d/b/a MARCHE MADISON, KIM KYUNG HO, and JEFFREY KIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09479 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay spread of hours compensation and overtime wages and failure to furnish accurate wage notice and wage statements. Plaintiffs Zanabria and Velasco were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt hourly employees at Marche Madison in New York from the middle of 2018 until October 2022 and from April of 2019 until October 2022, respectively. Gourmet Tech Corp, doing business as Marche Madison, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 630 1st Avenue, New York, New York. Madison Gourmet Ltd., doing business as Marche Madison, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 931 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Harrison, Esq. Julie Salwen, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 State Highway 35, Suite 10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com GREAT AMERICAN: Lee Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLEN LEE and CHUNG LEE; Individually, and on Behalf of the Class; and HAMID R. TAVAKOLIAN, Individually only, v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation (GALIC), Case No. 5:20-cv-01133-SPG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to file under seal unredacted versions of Exhibit 8 in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, which contain information designated as confidential by GALIC pursuant to the Protective Order. Great American is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance ("P&C"), focusing on specialized commercial products for businesses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3skft55 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org - and - Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net sball@einsurelaw.com HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Bid to Dismiss Pizzuto Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Homology Medicines, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on May 9, 2023, a Massachusetts court issued an order permitting the parties in a putative securities class action lawsuit to submit updated briefs in connection with the motion to dismiss, which were submitted on June 8, 2023, July 13, 2023, and August 3, 2023. The motion to dismiss remains pending. On March 25, 2022, the company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned "Pizzuto v. Homology Medicines, Inc.," Case No. 2:22–CV–01968. The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose certain information regarding efficacy and safety in connection with a Phase I/II HMI-102 clinical trial, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The case is in its early stages. The company filed a motion to transfer venue (filed September 2, 2022) and a motion to dismiss (filed October 17, 2022). On April 18, 2023, the court granted the motion to transfer, finding that venue was not proper in the Central District of California and transferring the case to the District of Massachusetts. Following the transfer, the case number changed to 1:23-cv-10858-AK (D. Mass.) Homology Medicines, Inc. is a clinical-stage genetic medicines company dedicated to transforming the lives of patients suffering from rare diseases by addressing the underlying cause of the disease with one-time gene therapy and gene editing treatments. The company was founded in March 2015 as a Delaware corporation with its principal offices are in Bedford, Massachusetts. IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Deal Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Ianthus Capital Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on March 21, 2023, the parties in a consolidated action executed a settlement agreement and filed the motion for preliminary approval with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which remains pending. On May 5, 2020, Peter Cedeno, a shareholder of the company, filed a putative class action against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and others for alleged false and misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt, that were held in escrow to make interest payments in the event of default on such long-term debt. On June 16, 2020, four separate motions for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel were filed by Jose Antonio Silva, Robert and Sherri Newblatt, Robert Dankner, and Melvin Fussell. On July 9, 2020, the court issued an order consolidating the class action lawsuit and appointed Jose Antonio Silva as lead plaintiff. On July 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff and defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action lawsuit against the company. On November 20, 2020, the company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 8, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. The company and its Chief Financial Officer's reply to the opposition was filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the court granted the company's and its Chief Financial Officer's Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. The court indicated that the lead plaintiff may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the amended complaint. The lead plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a second amended complaint was included as part of the Stipulation identified above. On November 3, 2021, the court so-ordered the stipulation and the lead plaintiff's second amended complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the lead plaintiff's second amended complaint. The lead plaintiff's opposition to the company's and its Chief Financial Officer's Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The Company's and its Chief Financial Officer's reply to the lead plaintiff's opposition was filed on March 21, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the lead plaintiff's second Amended Complaint. On October 12, 2022, the parties filed the Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order, which the court so ordered on October 19, 2022, ordering that that the defendants' answers are due on November 21, 2022; that the parties shall submit a proposed discovery plan by December 12, 2022; and that discovery in the class action lawsuit shall be coordinated with discovery in another action, to the extent the two actions involved overlapping issues. The parties agreed to submit the matter to mediation, which took place on January 17, 2023. On January 31, 2023, the parties advised the court that the defendants and lead plaintiff reached a settlement in principle and anticipated filing a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by March 9, 2023. Accordingly, the parties requested that the court suspend all further deadlines and proceedings in the Class Action Lawsuit pending submission of the motion for preliminary approval. On March 7, 2023, the parties advised the court that the parties required a short extension of the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and such motion would be filed by March 21, 2023. IANTHUS CAPITAL: To Settle Blue Sky Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Ianthus Capital Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that the parties have reached a settlement in principle with regards to a a putative class action against the company, the company's former Chief Executive Officer, and the company's Chief Financial Officer in the Ontario Superior court of Justice (OSCJ) in Toronto, Ontario. Blue Sky Realty Corporation filed said suit on July 23, 2020. On September 27, 2021, the OSCJ granted leave for the plaintiff to amend its claim where the plaintiff seeks to certify the proposed class action on behalf of two classes. Among other things, the plaintiff alleges statutory and common law misrepresentation, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages together with interest and costs. The plaintiff also alleges common law oppression for releasing certain statements allegedly containing misrepresentations inducing class members to hold the company's securities beyond April 5, 2020. No certification motion has been scheduled. The amended claim also changed the named plaintiff from Blue Sky Realty Corporation to Timothy Kwong. The hearing date for the motion for leave to proceed with a secondary market claim under the Securities Act (Ontario) has been vacated. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a vertically-integrated multi-state owner and operator of licensed cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities in the United States. It was incorporated under the laws of British Columbia, Canada, on November 15, 2013. IMAGINE360 LLC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel in the lawsuit captioned IN RE IMAGINE360, LLC DATA SECURITY INCIDENT LITIGATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-02603-GEKP (E.D. Pa.). Judge Pratter notes that data breach class action cases are becoming more prevalent. As such cases grow in number due to the cybersecurity risks of the 21st century, the need to ensure skilled lawyering for these data breach incidents increases as well. The Court is satisfied that the proposal that the Plaintiffs' counsel serve as Interim Co-Lead Counsel in this data breach action is meritorious. Imagine360 provides self-funded health insurance plan services to employers and requires these employer clients to submit employee personal and health information for Imagine360's service. In February 2023, hackers, including a ransomware group linked to Russian interests, stole data from Fortra, one of Imagine360's business associates. Through that hack, the cybercriminals allegedly gained access to medical and health insurance information of the employees of Imagine360's employer customers. Plaintiff Anthony Collins, on behalf of a putative class, filed suit on July 7, 2023, alleging that Imagine360 was negligent in safeguarding the sensitive information in its possession, thereby, causing damages due to cybercriminals gaining access to the employer clients' employee information. Plaintiff Dawn McGee, on behalf of a nearly identical putative class, filed suit three weeks later, with largely similar claims. The Plaintiffs in the two cases filed a Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Mason Barney of Siri & Glimstad, LLP, and Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. The Court has consolidated the two cases. The Plaintiffs' counsel in both cases have identified and investigated potential claims, including by researching the potential legal claims against Imagine360. They have also drafted and filed the respective complaints and the instant Motion. Thus far for the status of this case, Judge Pratter notes, counsel have devoted significant time and effort. Judge Pratter finds that counsel have met the factors required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1). Both counsel have served as lead counsel in several other cases, and are backed by a leading law firm that can devote the necessary resources to this matter. For these reasons, the Court grants the Motion to Appoint Mason Barney of Siri & Glimstad, LLP, and Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Oct. 24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yra2scxd from PacerMonitor.com. JONES LANG: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Vinas and Ruml Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- YINETTE VINAS and WILLIAM RUML, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 617070/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., October 19, 2023) alleges violations of the New York Labor Law in connection with its failure to pay timely wages to manual workers. From approximately December 2019 to April 2020, Plaintiff Yinette Vinas was employed by Defendant as a Concierge worker. More than 25% of Plaintiff's job responsibilities at Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. included manual labor, including tasks such as cleaning general areas, taking out the garbage, cleaning individual offices, filling up the water container, maintaining offices supplies, and making sure coffee and related supplies were stocked at all times. However, prior to receiving authorization from the Department of Labor Commissioner on November 25, 2022, the Defendant violated NYLL by paying its manual workers, including Plaintiffs, every other week rather than on a weekly basis, says the suit. Based in Chicago, IL, JLL is a Maryland corporation that owns, operates, and maintains hundreds of commercial real estate properties throughout New York. It is also one of the largest commercial real estate companies in the world. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com KEDRION BIOPHARMA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bannister Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CASSITY BANNISTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEDRION BIOPHARMA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 617590/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., Oct. 29, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Bannister was employed by the Defendant as a technician. KEDRION BIOPHARMA, INC. manufactures biopharmaceutical products. The Company specializes in biopharmaceuticals derived from human plasma and plasma proteins. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 KERN VALLEY HEALTHCARE: Benson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kern Valley Healthcare District. The case is styled as Mercy Benson and Tiffany Lao, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Kern Valley Healthcare District, Case No. BCV-23-103556 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 23, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Kern Valley Heath District -- https://www.kvhd.org/ -- focus is providing state-of-the-art health services to the Kern River Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consumer Practices Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Davis Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act violation in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court's dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020. On May 26, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion approving the result of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in favor of the Plaintiff. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary laboratories. LIVWELL PRODUCTS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Scheibe's Claim for Relief ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's request for equitable relief in the lawsuit titled JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVWELL PRODUCTS, LLC d/b/a Adapted Nutrition, a Maryland limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00216-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal.). On Feb. 6, 2023, Plaintiff Jacob Scheibe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action Complaint against Defendant Livwell Products, LLC d/b/a Adapted Nutrition. On March 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's request for equitable relief. The Plaintiff filed an opposition, to which the Defendant replied. The Court found the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. Judge Anello notes that the factual allegations as initially alleged in the Complaint remain largely unchanged. The Defendant sells and manufactures a dietary supplement called Keto K1000 powder, which comes in a variety of flavors (the "Products"). On Oct. 18, 2022, the Plaintiff purchased the Products' watermelon, orange, lemonade, and raspberry flavors from Amazon.com. The front label of the Products state that they contain "Nothing Artificial." According to the Plaintiff, he carefully reviews dietary supplement labels, including the Products' label, because he prefers to consume only products that contain all-natural ingredients and flavorings. However, the Plaintiff alleges that the Products' labelling claim is false because the Products are flavored using an artificial flavoring agent, DL malic acid. He contends that he would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid a substantially reduced price, had he known that the "Nothing Artificial" representation was false. The Plaintiff originally pleaded eight claims: (1) violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"); (2–4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (5) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (6) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (7) unjust enrichment; and (8) breach of express warranty. In ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's MCPA and unjust enrichment claims, as well as his request for equitable relief. Additionally, the Court dismissed all of his claims to the extent they were premised upon the DL malic acid naming theory. By way of his First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) violation of the CLRA; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) breach of express warranty. He also reasserts his request for equitable relief. The Defendant's motion to dismiss solely challenges the Plaintiff's reassertion of equitable relief as a remedy for his claims. In connection with his CLRA claim, the Plaintiff seeks "injunctive relief, disgorgement, and restitution," in addition to monetary damages. He also seeks disgorgement and restitution in connection with his unjust enrichment claim. There is no specific demand for relief identified underneath the Plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty. But generally speaking, the Plaintiff prays for an order and judgment: a. Certifying the Class; b. Declaring that Defendant violated the CLRA; c. Awarding actual and other damages as permitted by law, and/or ordering an accounting by the Defendant for any and all profits derived by the Defendant from the unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent conduct and/or business practices alleged herein; d. Ordering an awarding of injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including enjoining the Defendant from continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein, and ordering the Defendant to engage in a corrective advertising campaign; e. Ordering the Defendant to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs to the Plaintiff; f. Ordering the Defendant to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and g. Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. In its Order on the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's request for equitable relief for failure to plead that he lacks an adequate remedy at law. The Court also found that his request for injunctive relief was subject to dismissal on the independent ground that he failed to plead an actual threat of future harm. According to the Plaintiff's opposition, he intended "to withdraw all equitable claims in his First Amended Complaint" and the retention was merely a clerical error. Notwithstanding this concession, Judge Anello notes that the Plaintiff substantively opposes the Defendant's motion as it relates to his standing to pursue injunctive relief. The Court was clear that dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief includes injunctive relief. For the sake of clarity, the Court elaborates that "federal courts sitting in diversity may exercise equitable jurisdiction only to the extent federal equitable principles allow them to do so," citing Guzman v. Polaris Indus., 49 F.4th 1308, 1315 (9th Cir. 2022). In Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020), Judge Anello notes that the Ninth Circuit held in no uncertain terms that a plaintiff must establish that she lacks an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable restitution for past harm under the CLRA. The court in Sonner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in in Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945), which did not draw any distinction among the various forms of equitable relief. As a result, district courts have not limited Sonner to restitution but rather have held that the inadequate remedy at law requirement applies to all forms of equitable relief, including injunctive relief. Additionally, district courts routinely apply Sonner's instruction to claims for equitable relief in connection with an unjust enrichment claim. Therefore, Sonner applies to all of the forms of equitable relief the Plaintiff seeks, Judge Anello points out. A review of the FAC reveals that the Plaintiff has made no attempt to include allegations that he lacks an adequate remedy at law, Judge Anello says. Guided by the Plaintiff's opposition, Judge Anello finds it is apparent that this was because the Plaintiff has abandoned his equitable relief claims. What is not apparent, however, is whether he understands this encompasses his request for injunctive relief. In any event, Judge Anello says it does. Even if the Court were inclined to assign any misunderstanding to a lack of specificity in the prior Order, the Plaintiff was advised in advance of filing an opposition, and, therefore, prior to abandoning these remedies, that equitable relief includes injunctions and that the latter is subject to the inadequate remedy at law requirement. As discussed in the prior Order, in order to pursue equitable relief, the Plaintiff must plead that he lacks an adequate remedy at law. He fails to do so here, Judge Anello says. The Court previously granted leave to amend to cure this defect and the Plaintiff has not done so but has instead voluntarily dismissed his requests for equitable relief. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Plaintiff's requests for equitable relief--including restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief--without leave to amend. Additionally, because the Plaintiff only seeks equitable relief as a remedy for his unjust enrichment claim, regardless of whether the Plaintiff may pursue this claim in the alternative, Judge Anello points out that his failure to plead he lacks an adequate remedy at law renders this claim subject to dismissal. Moreover, Judge Anello opines, as all three of the Plaintiff's claims are premised upon the same, singular harm, it is clear on these facts that the Plaintiff has an adequate remedy available: damages under the CLRA. As such, amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment without leave to amend. Because the Court finds that the Plaintiff fails to plead that no adequate remedy exists at law, it is unnecessary to consider whether the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a threat of future harm to pursue an injunction as a form of equitable relief. For this reason, the Plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority does not change the outcome. Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's request for equitable relief and dismisses the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim without leave to amend. The Court directs the Defendant to file an answer to the FAC, responding to the Plaintiff's CLRA (Claim 1) and breach of express warranty (Claim 3) causes of action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fsy8z5y from PacerMonitor.com. LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Consolidated Suit Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lordstown Motors Corp. (formerly DiamondPeak Holdings Corp.) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that a putative securities class action lawsuit filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors and former DiamondPeak directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has been stayed after the company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 28, 2023, and filed an amended suggestion of bankruptcy on July 11, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases. The case captioned "FNY Managed Accounts LLC v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al." generally alleges that the company and individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to vehicle pre-orders and production timeline. The matter was consolidated and the court appointed George Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel. On September 10, 2021, lead plaintiff and several additional named plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed as of March 3, 2022. A hearing on the motion to dismiss has not been scheduled and a decision has not yet been rendered. Lordstown Motors Corp. is an original equipment manufacturer of electric light duty vehicles focused on the commercial fleet market. Its flagship vehicle, the Endurance, is an electric full-size pickup truck. LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Hebert Suit Over SEC Disclosures Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Lordstown Motors Corp. (formerly DiamondPeak Holdings Corp.) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed against former DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC on December 8 and 13, 2021 in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned "Hebert v. Hamamoto, et al." (C.A. No. 2021-1066) is currently ongoing. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors in DiamondPeak and assert breach of fiduciary duty claims based on allegations that the defendants made or failed to prevent alleged misrepresentations regarding vehicle pre-orders and production timeline, and that but for those allegedly false and misleading disclosures, the plaintiffs would have exercised a right to redeem their shares prior to a de-SPAC transaction. On February 9, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the existing putative class action lawsuits, appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel and setting a briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss and motions to stay. The motions to stay were fully briefed as of February 23, 2022 and the court held oral argument on February 28, 2022. On March 7, 2022, the court denied the motion to stay. On March 10, 2022, defendants filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on April 27, 2022, and was scheduled for oral argument on May 10, 2022. On May 6, 2022, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On July 22, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint asserting similar claims. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint on October 14, 2022. Plaintiffs' answering brief and defendants' reply brief were due on November 18 and December 9, 2022, respectively. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 6, 2023. On January 5, 2023, the defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss. On February 2, 2023, the court issued a case scheduling order setting forth pre-trial deadlines and a date for trial in March 2024. On February 3, 2023, defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. On February 7, 2023, plaintiffs served the company, as a non-party, with a subpoena for certain information, which the company responded to on February 21, 2023. On June 9, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel regarding the appropriate scope of the company's response to the subpoena. On July 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the class action litigation. Plaintiffs and the company, as a non-party, are currently meeting and conferring regarding the scope of the company's discovery obligations pursuant to the subpoena. Lordstown Motors Corp. is an original equipment manufacturer of electric light duty vehicles focused on the commercial fleet market. Its flagship vehicle, the Endurance, is an electric full-size pickup truck. MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Bishop Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bishop v. Family Dollar et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02408 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order that: 1. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, all Parties to the Action, and the Settlement Class. 2. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Substitute and Dismiss Certain Class Representatives is granted. 3. The Settlement is conditionally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing. 4. The Plaintiffs Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Beverly Gordon, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Soyna Mull, Vinnie Smith, Sandra Walker, and Jerome Whitney are conditionally approved as Class Representatives. 5. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Sarah Sterling Aldridge, and Charles J. LaDuca are approved as Class Counsel, and the Court finds that Class Counsel has and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 6. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court conditionally certifies the following Class for purposes of this Settlement only, and subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing: a. All persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and, from January 1, 2020, through February 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. b. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely request to be excluded from this Settlement as provided in Paragraph 9. 7. If the Settlement Agreement does not receive the Court's final approval, if final approval is reversed on appeal, or if the Settlement Agreement is terminated or otherwise fails to become effective, the Court’s grant of conditional class certification of the Settlement Class shall be vacated, the Parties shall revert to their positions in the Action as they existed on April 18, 2023, and the Settlement Class Representatives and the Settlement Class Members will once again bear the burden to prove the propriety of class certification and the merits of their claims at trial. 8. Settlement Class Members will have sixty calendar days from the Notice Date to submit their Claim Forms. 9. The Final Settlement Fairness Hearing shall be held by the Court on Friday, April 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. On July 18, 2023, the State of Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene, arguing that the Plaintiffs' class-action Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ATDPA") claims are prohibited by Arkansas law. The Bishop Suit is consolidated in MDL 3032 Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40ki2kh at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown, et al., v. Family Dollar, Inc., et al Case No. 2:22-cv-02374 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order that: 1. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, all Parties to the Action, and the Settlement Class. 2. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Substitute and Dismiss Certain Class Representatives is granted. 3. The Settlement is conditionally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing. 4. The Plaintiffs Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Beverly Gordon, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Soyna Mull, Vinnie Smith, Sandra Walker, and Jerome Whitney are conditionally approved as Class Representatives. 5. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Sarah Sterling Aldridge, and Charles J. LaDuca are approved as Class Counsel, and the Court finds that Class Counsel has and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 6. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court conditionally certifies the following Class for purposes of this Settlement only, and subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing: a. All persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and, from January 1, 2020, through February 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. b. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely request to be excluded from this Settlement as provided in Paragraph 9. 7. If the Settlement Agreement does not receive the Court's final approval, if final approval is reversed on appeal, or if the Settlement Agreement is terminated or otherwise fails to become effective, the Court’s grant of conditional class certification of the Settlement Class shall be vacated, the Parties shall revert to their positions in the Action as they existed on April 18, 2023, and the Settlement Class Representatives and the Settlement Class Members will once again bear the burden to prove the propriety of class certification and the merits of their claims at trial. 8. Settlement Class Members will have sixty calendar days from the Notice Date to submit their Claim Forms. 9. The Final Settlement Fairness Hearing shall be held by the Court on Friday, April 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. On July 18, 2023, the State of Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene, arguing that the Plaintiffs' class-action Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ATDPA") claims are prohibited by Arkansas law. The Brown Suit is consolidated in MDL 3032 Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49a79pr at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Fields Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fields, et al., v. Family Dollar Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02380 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order that: 1. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, all Parties to the Action, and the Settlement Class. 2. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Substitute and Dismiss Certain Class Representatives is granted. 3. The Settlement is conditionally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing. 4. The Plaintiffs Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Beverly Gordon, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Soyna Mull, Vinnie Smith, Sandra Walker, and Jerome Whitney are conditionally approved as Class Representatives. 5. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Sarah Sterling Aldridge, and Charles J. LaDuca are approved as Class Counsel, and the Court finds that Class Counsel has and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 6. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court conditionally certifies the following Class for purposes of this Settlement only, and subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing: a. All persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and, from January 1, 2020, through February 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. b. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely request to be excluded from this Settlement as provided in Paragraph 9. 7. If the Settlement Agreement does not receive the Court's final approval, if final approval is reversed on appeal, or if the Settlement Agreement is terminated or otherwise fails to become effective, the Court’s grant of conditional class certification of the Settlement Class shall be vacated, the Parties shall revert to their positions in the Action as they existed on April 18, 2023, and the Settlement Class Representatives and the Settlement Class Members will once again bear the burden to prove the propriety of class certification and the merits of their claims at trial. 8. Settlement Class Members will have sixty calendar days from the Notice Date to submit their Claim Forms. 9. The Final Settlement Fairness Hearing shall be held by the Court on Friday, April 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. On July 18, 2023, the State of Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene, arguing that the Plaintiffs' class-action Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ATDPA") claims are prohibited by Arkansas law. The Fields Suit is consolidated in MDL 3032 Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49rEwnM at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Lacy Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lacy, et al., v. Family Dollar, Inc., A North Carolina Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02379 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman entered an order that: 1. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, all Parties to the Action, and the Settlement Class. 2. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Substitute and Dismiss Certain Class Representatives is granted. 3. The Settlement is conditionally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing. 4. The Plaintiffs Sheena Bibbs, Tina Bishop, Beverly Gordon, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Soyna Mull, Vinnie Smith, Sandra Walker, and Jerome Whitney are conditionally approved as Class Representatives. 5. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Sarah Sterling Aldridge, and Charles J. LaDuca are approved as Class Counsel, and the Court finds that Class Counsel has and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 6. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court conditionally certifies the following Class for purposes of this Settlement only, and subject to further consideration at the Final Settlement Fairness Hearing: a. All persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and, from January 1, 2020, through February 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from an Affected Family Dollar Store. b. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates of Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel and any other attorneys who represent Settlement Class Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family members; and (v) Persons who timely request to be excluded from this Settlement as provided in Paragraph 9. 7. If the Settlement Agreement does not receive the Court's final approval, if final approval is reversed on appeal, or if the Settlement Agreement is terminated or otherwise fails to become effective, the Court’s grant of conditional class certification of the Settlement Class shall be vacated, the Parties shall revert to their positions in the Action as they existed on April 18, 2023, and the Settlement Class Representatives and the Settlement Class Members will once again bear the burden to prove the propriety of class certification and the merits of their claims at trial. 8. Settlement Class Members will have sixty calendar days from the Notice Date to submit their Claim Forms. 9. The Final Settlement Fairness Hearing shall be held by the Court on Friday, April 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. On July 18, 2023, the State of Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene, arguing that the Plaintiffs' class-action Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ATDPA") claims are prohibited by Arkansas law. The Lacy Suit is consolidated in MDL 3032 Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation. Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and household goods at discounted prices. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47akxIi at no extra charge.[CC] NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Collects Data Without Consent, Afriyie Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AMMA AFRIYIE; and ROY CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC; and PEACOCK TV, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09433 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2023) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants owns and operates a number of video streaming apps including the Peacock TV App, the CNBC News App, the NBC News App, and the NBC Sports App. The NBC Apps incorporate third party software development kits ("SDKs"). SDKs allow app and website developers to integrate pre-built functionality into their software products. The NBC Apps surreptitiously collected and transmitted data from NBC App subscribers, including Plaintiffs, to third parties, through SDKs using custom app events and other means. This data included subscribers' video viewing history, including Video Titles and Video IDs that identify specific videos watched, and personally identifiable information, says the suit. By disclosing subscribers' video viewing history with PII, the Defendants provided third parties with information sufficient to identify the specific individuals who watched the videos. For example, the Peacock TV App discloses a subscriber's Adobe ID and user or account identifiers, along with their AAID, for Android devices, and IDFA, for iOS devices, to third-party Adobe, together with Video IDs and Video Titles., the suit alleges. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC operates as a media and entertainment company. The Company develops, produces, and markets entertainment, news, and media information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Nicole A. Veno, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Michael Canty, Esq. Carol Villegas, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, 34th Fl. New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: mcanty@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com OCEAN SPRAY: Bullock Sues Over Mislabeled Cranberry Juice --------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA BULLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12557 (D. Mass., Oct. 27, 2023) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers of the Defendant's cranberry juice products alleging misrepresentation in its claim to have "NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS OR PRESERVATIVES." According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's representation is false and misleading because the Products contain ascorbic acid, a known preservative commonly used in food products. The Defendant's "NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS OR PRESERVATIVES" representation is featured on the Products' labeling in order to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase foods that are free from preservatives. The Defendant markets its Products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting that the Products do not contain preservatives.. Further, the Defendant has profited unjustly as a result of its deceptive conduct, the suit alleges. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. is a marketing cooperative owned by more than 900 cranberry and citrus growers from throughout the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: jsmith@bursor.com - and - Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com OCEAN SPRAY: Juice's No Preservatives Label "False," Wright Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-mc-80279 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law and for breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged engagement in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Ocean Spray Cran-Raspberry juice product and the Ocean Spray 100% Juice Cranberry Watermelon product. The Defendant labels these products with claim that they include "No Preservatives." This statement is false because the products are made with citric acid, a well-known preservative used in food and beverage products. The Plaintiff and the putative class members suffered economic injury as a result of the Defendant's actions, the suit says. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. is a producer of beverage products, with its principal place of business at 1 Ocean Spray Drive, Lakeville-Middleboro, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com OHIO: District Court Dismisses Bandy v. ODRC Dir. Chambers-Smith ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Pamela A. Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum of Opinion and Order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Willie Bandy, Plaintiff v. Annette Chambers-Smith, Case No. 1:23-cv-01886-PAB (N.D. Ohio). Pro se Plaintiff Willie Bandy filed this action against Annette Chambers-Smith in her capacity as the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). The Plaintiff objects to the ODRC's transition from JPAY to ViaPath as its electronic communication, entertainment and electronic education vendor. Specifically, the Plaintiff objects that he is unable to keep his JPAY tablet. Although the ODRC replaced all JPAY tablets with ViaPath tablets at no charge to the inmate and transferred data from the old tablet to the new tablet, the Plaintiff does not wish to relinquish his old tablet. He claims the ODRC failed to warn him when he purchased his JPAY tablet four years ago that, at some point in the future, it could be considered contraband. He seeks $35,000 in damages and injunctive relief to prevent the ODRC from requiring him to either send his JPAY tablet home or turn it into prison officials. The Plaintiff alleges that prior to July 2023, ODRC inmates were permitted to purchase JPay electronic tablets to download music, video games, books, and other publications. The tablets could also be used to send communications to prison staff and family members. In July 2023, the ODRC notified inmates that it was transitioning electronic communication, entertainment, and electronic education vendors from JPAY to ViaPath. The ODRC informed inmates that it would begin a plan to phase out the JPAY tablets and replace them with ViaPath tablets. Under the new ViaPath contract, the ODRC distributed new ViaPath tablets to inmates at no additional cost to the inmate. These tablets include applications such as a wellness app, education opportunities, more book selections, podcasts, and internet radio. An upgraded messaging application is also available for inmates and their loved ones. The ODRC's phase out plan was spread over the course of three months. From July 10, 2023, until Sept. 30, 2023, inmates could choose either to turn their JPAY tablet into a designated staff member and receive a credit to their prison trust accounts or mail the tablet to an address of their choice with postage paid fully by the ODRC. The amount of the credit gradually diminished as the deadline approached. Tablets could be turned into staff members in July 2023 for a ten-dollar credit. Tablets turned into staff members in August 2023 would receive only a five-dollar credit. Tablets turned into staff members in September 2023 would not receive a credit but could still be mailed out of the ODRC with postage fully paid by the ODRC. All inmates, regardless of whether they turned in their tablets or mailed them out of the institution, received free games from ViaPath for one year. The ODRC informed inmates that all content from the JPAY tablets, except games, would transfer from the JPAY tablet to the ViaPath tablet. This includes purchased music, photos, e-messages, kites, grievances and videograms, The ODRC notified inmates that they could not keep JPAY tablets at the institution after Oct. 1, 2023. All JPAY tablets found in the inmate's possession after Oct. 1, 2023, would considered contraband. The Plaintiff objects to the ODRC policy that considers the old JPAY tablet to be contraband. He contends that the ODRC failed to warn him when he purchased the JPAY tablet four years earlier that at some point in the future, the ODRC might switch vendors and consider the tablet to be contraband. He compares this to other cases in which companies failed to place adequate warnings of their product's dangers on the label, which resulted in injury. He claims that the ODRC did not warn him of the risks of purchasing a JPAY tablet. He seeks an injunction to prevent the ODRC from considering his JPAY tablet to be contraband and asks that the Court award him monetary damages for emotional injuries he has sustained. Judge Barker says the Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than "an unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Judge Barker holds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. To establish diversity of citizenship, the Plaintiff must establish that he is a citizen of one state and all of the Defendants are citizens of other states. The citizenship of a natural person equates to his domicile. The second type of federal jurisdiction relies on the presence of a federal question, Judge Barker says. This type of jurisdiction arises where a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the Plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Judge Barker finds that the case is not based on a federal question. The Plaintiff claims the ODRC failed to warn him at the time he purchased his electronic tablet that at some point in the future, they might change service providers whose system would not be compatible with the tablet. He cites to manufacturer's labels on hard candies warning of choking hazards and labels on hot coffee warning that the product may cause burns and suggests that the ODRC should have provided similar warning labels on the JPAY tablets. Failure to warn claims arise under state tort laws. Judge Barker holds they do not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff could only bring his state tort claim in federal court if he established diversity of citizenship. There is no suggestion, however, that it exists in this case, Judge Barker points out. The Plaintiff is incarcerated in Ohio's Grafton Correctional Institution. The Defendant is the ODRC Director. Judge Barker explains that a plaintiff in federal court has the burden of pleading sufficient facts to support the existence of the Court's jurisdiction. In a diversity action, this means that the Plaintiff must state the citizenship of all parties so that the existence of complete diversity can be confirmed. As written, the Complaint suggests that all parties are citizens of Ohio. Judge Barker holds federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on diversity of citizenship. Judge Barker finds the Plaintiff has not established a basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Hence, the action must be dismissed. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to keep the Defendant from taking his JPAY tablet during the pendency of this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and is dismissing this action, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied. Accordingly, Judge Barker rules that the action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. The Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion to Amend Appendix Page, and Motion to Moot Other Inmates Attempting to Join Plaintiff's Case as a Class Action are denied. The Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be addressed in a separate Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated Oct. 24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zxd6xs9 from PacerMonitor.com. PATHWARD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cantrell Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE CANTRELL; and TRACY ALCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PATHWARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12554-ADB (D. Mass., Oct. 27, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated Pathward customers' sensitive information, including full names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, email addresses, phone number, card numbers, card account numbers, card expiration dates, other card information, Social Security numbers, and other sensitive information or (personally identifiable information. According to the Plaintiff, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendants failed to adequately protect the Plaintiffs' and Class Members PII, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit asserts. PATHWARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (MetaBank) provides banking services. The Company offers online banking, current accounts, mobile banking, personal loans, debit cards, e-banking, mortgage loan, commercial lending, cash management, and insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Email: rkassan@milberg.com PENSION BENEFIT: Glabb Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Scott Glabb, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Berwyn Group, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-02240 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. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12511-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Pension Benefits Information (PBI) -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- is a third-party vendor utilized by thousands of entities to verify information to prevent overpayments to retirees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 17 Washington Ave N Ste 300 Mpls, MN 55401-2048 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2921 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 767-3613 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com The Defendants are represented by: 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. Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 750-0548 Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com PENSION BENEFIT: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karen Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Berwyn Group, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-02055 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. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12489-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Pension Benefits Information (PBI) -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- is a third-party vendor utilized by thousands of entities to verify information to prevent overpayments to retirees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne T. Regan, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: anne.regan@zimmreed.com - and - Lindsey LaBelle Larson, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 484-8599 Email: llabellelarson@hjlawfirm.com - and - Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55401-2179 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 The Defendants are represented by: 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. Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 750-0548 Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com PENSION BENEFIT: White Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Diane White, Sabela Portillo, Rebecca Iddings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Berwyn Group, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-02254 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. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12512-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Pension Benefits Information (PBI) -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- is a third-party vendor utilized by thousands of entities to verify information to prevent overpayments to retirees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. June Pineda Hoidal, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com june.hoidal@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com The Defendants are represented by: 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. Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 750-0548 Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com PENSION BENEFIT: Williams Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Glen Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Berwyn Group, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-02238 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. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12508-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Pension Benefits Information (PBI) -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- is a third-party vendor utilized by thousands of entities to verify information to prevent overpayments to retirees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 596-4097 Email: Khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: 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. Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 750-0548 Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com PHENOMEX INC: Faces Ng Securities Suit in N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- PhenomeX Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that it is facing a securities class action complaint in the Northern District of California filed in December 2021 by Victor J. Ng. This was amended on July 25, 2022. Said action is on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired, Berkeley Lights common stock pursuant and/or traceable to certain July 2020 Initial Public Offering (IPO) offering documents and/or securities of Berkeley Lights between July 17, 2020 and January 5, 2022, inclusive. PhenomeX was formed earlier this year after Berkeley Lights bought up IsoPlexis Corp. The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. It names, as defendants, the company, certain of the company's current and former senior executives and directors, the underwriter firms that sponsored the company's July 2020 IPO, and three firms that invested in the company. PhenomeX Inc. is a functional cell biology company that provides live cell biology research tools which deliver deep insights into cellular function and new perspectives on phenomes. POWERAI CONSTRUCTION: Corrie Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PowerAI Construction Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert Corrie, Corey Riechman, and Wes Grider, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Powerai Construction Inc., f/k/a Smarter Home Technology Illinois Inc., and Travis Carter, individually, Case No. 3:23-cv-50377 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Powerai Construction Inc., formerly known as Smarter Home Technology Illinois Inc. -- https://smarterhometechnology.com/ -- is the world's First ever AI Powered Construction, pick your product, search for a builder, and schedule an installation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Barack, Esq. Andrew Fullett, Esq. THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 701 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago, IL 60642 Phone: (312) 736-7991 Email: max@garfinkelgroup.com andrew@garfinkelgroup.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Vent Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Decongestants ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Vent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00680-DRC (S.D. Ohio, October 19, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for fraud, false marketing, false advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and breaches of state law consumer protection statutes. The class action is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated who purchased Defendant's tablet style phenylephrine medicine, "Sinex SEVERE ALL IN ONE SINUS + MUCUS LiquiCaps" branded products, containing phenylephrine, that were manufactured, marketed, labeled, distributed, and sold by Defendant. These drugs are marketed as effective in combating sinus issues, such as congestion, among other things. However, these drugs are ineffective according to the FDA due to their active ingredient being phenylephrine, says the suit. The Procter and Gamble Company is an Ohio based corporation, with its principal place of business at: 1 Procter and Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E Nationwide Blvd. 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-1882 Facsimile: (614) 228-1862 E-mail: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: roy.willey@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Harris Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Patricia Harris, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05028 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. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12486-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Default. 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: Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com The Defendants are represented by: 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 PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Pulignani Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Steven Pulignani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, The Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01912 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12495-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property for Other Contract. 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: Eric N Stravitz, Esq. STRAVITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 4601 Presidents Drive, Ste. 120 Lanham, MD 20706 Phone: (240) 467-5741 Fax: (240) 467-5743 Email: eric@stravitzlawfirm.com - and - Courtney Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K St., NW, Suite 300 Washington, MD 20006 Phone: (202) 827-9980 Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, The Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01933 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12496-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. 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: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@masonllp.com The Defendant is represented by: William F. Kiniry, III, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP US 650 South Exeter Street, Suite 1100 Baltimore City, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 580-4623 Fax: (215) 498-5131 Email: william.kiniryiii@dlapiper.com - and - James D. Houghton, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2001 M St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006-4103 Phone: (202) 349-8000 Fax: (202) 349-8080 Email: jhoughton@orrick.com - and - Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Phone: (206) 883-2542 Fax: (206) 883-2699 Email: ASwaminathan@wsgr.com - and - Marc Shapiro, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-3521 Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Truesdale Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Monika Truesdale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, The Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01913 transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12497-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property for Other Contract. 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: Eric N. Stravitz, Esq. STRAVITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 4601 Presidents Drive, Ste. 120 Lanham, MD 20706 Phone: (240) 467-5741 Fax: (240) 467-5743 Email: eric@stravitzlawfirm.com - and - Courtney Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K St., NW, Suite 300 Washington, MD 20006 Phone: (202) 827-9980 Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parker Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bruce Parker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:23-cv-04617 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12514-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. The Prudential Insurance Company of America -- https://www.prudential.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life and group insurance, investment, and retirement services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (212) 868-1229 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Tricia B O'Reilly, Esq. Joseph L. Linares, Esq. WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP Three Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 757-1100 Email: toreilly@walsh.law jlinares@walsh.law RAS LAVRAR LLC: Rivero Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Natalie Rivero, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RAS LaVrar, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-018901 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Broward Co., to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-62033-KMW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. RAS LaVrar, LLC -- https://raslavrar.com/ -- is one of the largest collection law firms in Florida.[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 The Defendant is represented by: Keith Robert Lorenze, Esq. ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID, CRANE & PARTNERS, PLLC 6409 Congress Ave., Suite 100 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (561) 241-6901 Email: klorenze@raslg.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Thompson Sues Over Decongestant's False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECKITT BENCKISER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01606 (W.D. Wash., October 19, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act and other specific Washington commercial statutes, including the Washington Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in connection with the Defendant's marketing and sale of over-the-counter (OTC) decongestant product line containing phenylephrine: Mucinex Nightshift. The Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of the entire Class, on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, to enjoin and prevent Defendant from engaging in the acts, such as continuing to market and sell these products that lack efficacy. The Plaintiff also seeks for an injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to provide a full refund of the purchase price of these products to Plaintiff and Class members. Headquartered in Parsippany, NJ, Reckitt Benckiser, LLC, is engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of various OTC pharmaceutical products, including Mucinex Nightshift Sinus and similar oral phenylephrine products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chelsie Warner, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-mail: cwarner@awkolaw.com - and- Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-4801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Miller Class suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ribbon Communications Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Miller class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Miller Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Massachusetts District Court") against the Company and three of its former officers (collectively, the "Defendants"), claiming to represent a class of purchasers of Sonus common stock during the period from January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance, which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018 Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose findings the Company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action. On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 19, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Miller Complaint and, on October 4, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. There was an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 12, 2020, and on October 20, 2022 the court denied the motion to dismiss. In June 2023, the Defendants agreed to a settlement in principle with the named plaintiffs, and the settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on October 18, 2023. The proposed settlement remains subject to final approval by the affected stockholders and the court. The court has set April 24, 2024 as the hearing date for final approval of the proposed settlement. If approved, the proposed settlement would provide a release of all claims asserted in the litigation to all Defendants, who continue to deny liability, and the proposed $4.5 million settlement amount is expected to be fully paid by the Company's Directors and Officers liability insurance. Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts. ROCKWELL COLLINS: Robledo Sues Over Labor Code Breaches ------------------------------------------------------- IVAN ROBLEDO, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiff v. ROCKWELL COLLINS OPTRONICS, INC., a California Stock Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23SMCV04944 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 19, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders. The Plaintiff was employed by Rockwell as Optical Tech II from on or about November 01, 2019 until on or about July 27, 2023. However, throughout his employment with the Defendants, he was regularly required to work off-the-clock, and/or during their rest and/or meal periods. Among other things, the Defendants failed to provide accurate employment records to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees, says the suit. Rockwell Collins Optronics, Inc designs, produces, and markets electronic communications, avionics and in-flight entertainment systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Melissa Robinson, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com melissa@hbklawyers.com RWS RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Evans Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RWS RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00120-GNS (D. Ky., Oct. 27, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Evans was employed by the Defendant as a miner. RWS RESOURCES, LLC offers full-service contractors for mining services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Corey Asay, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 312 Walnut Street Suite 1600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 318-4496 Email: casay@hkm.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, NW Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com S & R OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Rios Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Rios, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Susan Meacham, individually, and S & R Operations, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-03981 (S.D. Tex., October 19, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants hired Mr. Rios as a project manager in June of 2023 and terminated him on September 15, 2023 when he complained about the illegal compensation practices that violated FLSA. Mr. Rios, who was also misclassified as exempt employee, regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but was not paid overtime pay for hours he worked over 40 per workweek, says the suit. S & R Operations, Inc. provides water, mold, fire, and other restoration work to real property owners in the greater Houston area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com SAN FRANCISCO SPCA: Nayabkhil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Francisco SPCA, et al. The case is styled as Sitara Nayabkhil, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. San Francisco SPCA, doing business as SFSPCA, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC23609950 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 24, 2023). The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." San Francisco SPCA, doing business as SFSPCA -- https://www.sfspca.org/ -- is the largest adoption center, and outreach since 1868 and an independent nonprofit supported 100% by donations offering world-class veterinary care,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Genish, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 855-786-6355 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Gluck Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against City and County Of San Francisco, et al. The case is styled as Robert Gluck, Adam Hertz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. City and County Of San Francisco, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC23609954 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 24, 2023). The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." San Francisco -- https://sf.gov/ -- officially the City and County of San Francisco, is the commercial, financial, and cultural center of Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C St., Ste. 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-595-3001 Fax: 619-595-3000 Email: msinger@ckslaw.com SANTE HEALTH: Sumaria Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Nurses -------------------------------------------------------- MARK SUMARIA and ZAYDEE MERCADO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SANTE HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, CATHERINE LLAVANES, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV26286 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law including failure to reimburse expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages upon separation, and unfair competition. Plaintiff Sumaria was employed by the Defendants as a nurse in the position of Director of Surgery Center Services from approximately January 3, 2022, until on or about September 28, 2022. Plaintiff Mercado was employed by the Defendants as a nurse practitioner in the position of Chief Nursing Officer from approximately January 3, 2022, until on or about October 7, 2022. Sante Health Partners, LLC is a healthcare provider, with its principal address at 23822 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 209, Valencia, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rob Hennig, Esq. Shoshee Hui, Esq. Aris Prince, Esq. HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH, LLP 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1908 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 310-8301 Facsimile: (213) 310-8302 - and - Allison M. Schulman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ALLISON M. SCHULMAN, APC 1055 W. 7th St., Suite 1920 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 262-1825 SCWORX CORP: Court OK's Settlement of Consolidated Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- SCWORX Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on June 29, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a Stipulation of Settlement with regards to a consolidated securities class action case. On April 29, 2020, said suit was filed in against the company and its former CEO. The action is captioned "Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel." This action was then consolidated. The consolidated class action alleged that the company and its former CEO misled investors in connection with its April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. On February 11, 2022, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (subject to Court approval) to settle the Consolidated Class Action. The settlement resolved all claims asserted against SCWorx and the other named defendant without any admission, concession or finding of any fault, liability or wrongdoing by the company or any defendant. By order dated March 22, 2022, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action. After a fairness hearing held on June 29, 2022, it approved the Stipulation of Settlement. SCWorx, LLC (now SCW FL Corp.) was a privately held limited liability company which was organized in Florida on November 17, 2016. It is a provider of data content and services related to the repair, normalization and interoperability of information for healthcare providers and big data analytics for the healthcare industry. SIMS GROUP: Sanft Wins in Part Bid for Final Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit styled PAEA SANFT, Plaintiff v. SIMS GROUP USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-08154-JST (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Plaintiffs Paea Sanft and Sergio Bernal-Rodriguez's unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement, service awards, and administration costs. Class Counsel Sommers Schwartz, P.C., and James Hawkins APLC also seek attorney's fees and costs. The Court previously granted a motion for preliminary approval. No class member has objected to the settlement, and one class member excluded themselves from the settlement. Plaintiff Sanft filed this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective and wage-and-hour class action complaint on behalf of employees and former employees of Defendant Sims Group USA Corporation. Sanft worked for Sims Group, a global metal recycler, from June 1999 through September 2019, and held several different roles, including Labor, Maintenance, Lead Shift, Heavy Equipment Operator, and Equipment Operator. He alleges that Sims Group provided inaccurate overtime pay; failed to provide lawful meal periods; did not permit its employees to take their lawful paid rest period; and failed to provide accurate, lawful itemized wage statements in part because of the specified violations. Mr. Sanft filed his original complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo on Oct. 31, 2019, and Sims Group subsequently removed the action to federal court. On March 27, 2020, Bernal-Rodriguez filed a separate putative class action against Sims Group in the Northern District of California. In July 2020, Bernal-Rodriguez's action was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Further, in 2020, Sanft and Bernal-Rodriguez each filed Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") representative actions in San Mateo Superior Court, and in April 2021, they filed a consolidated PAGA representative action. Mr. Sanft filed the operative first amended complaint ("FAC") on April 3, 2020, which Sims Group answered on April 17, 2020. The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) failure to provide meal periods or compensation pursuant to the California Labor Code; (2) failure to provide rest periods or compensation pursuant to the California Labor Code; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code; (4) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (5) failure to pay overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bernal-Rodriguez is not a named Plaintiff in the FAC because "his paystubs demonstrated he could only maintain a state law overtime claim, not a FLSA overtime claim." The parties conducted discovery, which included exchange of information and documents regarding relevant policies on timekeeping, pay schemes, meal and rest periods, job descriptions and duties, the Plaintiffs' time and payroll records, time and pay records for a sampled group of the putative Class Members, as well as a 30(b)(6) deposition and written discovery. On March 3, 2020, the parties participated in a mediation session, but the case did not settle at that time. On Aug. 7, 2020, Sanft filed a motion seeking the Court's conditional certification of his proposed FLSA collective and approval of his proposed notice to opt-in plaintiffs, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The parties' settlement discussions resumed after the Court issued its conditional certification order. On Feb. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval, approval of class notice, and setting final approval hearing. The Court granted the motion on Sept. 2, 2022. On March 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement, attorney's fees and costs, service awards, and administration costs. The Court held a fairness hearing on April 27, 2023. After the hearing, the Court concluded that it needed further information to resolve the motion for final approval, attorney's fees and costs, services awards, and administration costs. The Court, therefore, ordered supplemental briefing to address the factors outlined in In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011), and to provide a summary of hours expended on major tasks necessary to this action. The proposed settlement agreement ("Settlement") resolves the claims between Sims Group and the Plaintiffs and the settlement class, defined as follows: a. FLSA OVERTIME COLLECTIVE: All of [Sims Group's] past and present non-exempt California employees who worked more than 40 hours in a week and earned shift differential pay during the same pay period during the period Jan. 19, 2018 - Jan. 19, 2021; b. MEAL AND REST PERIOD CLASS: All of [Sims Group's] past and present non-exempt California employees who worked for [Sims Group] from Oct. 31, 2015, through the date the Court grants Preliminary Approval, or 7.5 months (225 days) from the date the Plaintiffs file their Motion for Preliminary Approval, whichever occurs first; and c. WAGE STATEMENT CLASS: All of [Sim Group's] past and present non-exempt California employees, who worked for [Sims Group] from Oct. 31, 2018, through the date the Court grants Preliminary Approval, or 7.5 months (225 days) from the date the Plaintiffs file their Motion for Preliminary Approval, whichever occurs first. The class excludes individuals that previously executed a general release of claims against Sims Group, and have not worked for Sims Group since they executed such release. Under the settlement, Sims Group agrees to pay $157,500 ("Settlement Amount") as well as its share of any payroll taxes on individual settlement payments. The Settlement Amount includes the individual payments to participating class members, the statutory PAGA payment, service awards to the class representatives, attorney's fees and costs, and administration costs. The parties agree to seek approval for a payment of $10,000 to resolve the Plaintiffs' PAGA claims, 75% of which ($7,500) will be paid to the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, with the remainder ($2,500) distributed to class members. The Plaintiffs will submit requests for service awards in an amount not to exceed $5,000 each. They also will seek attorney's fees in an amount not to exceed $60,000, and will seek approval of actual and reasonable litigation and administration costs. No portion of the Settlement Amount will revert to the Defendants. After the deductions, the Plaintiffs estimate that the net settlement to be distributed to class members is $48,210.71. Each class member's payment will be calculated on a pro rata basis based on the number of weeks worked during the Class Period. After removal of the one individual, who submitted requests for exclusion, there are 528 class members, who will receive individual settlement payments ranging from approximately $0.32 to $690.25. The average net payment to class members is $91.31. Any funds remaining uncashed after 180 days will be sent to the California State Controller's Office in the name of the Class Member to whom the uncashed settlement payment was addressed. In exchange, class members will release the following claims against Sims Group: Any and all claims that accrued during the Class Period for the payment of unpaid wages, including overtime wages and "off-the-clock" wages. In addition, Plaintiffs Sanft and Bernal-Rodriguez have agreed to a general release, meaning that those Plaintiffs release claims both known and unknown. The Court approved the parties' proposed notice plan when it granted preliminary approval. Under the approved notice plan, the Plaintiffs retained ILYM Group, Inc., as the claims administrator. On Oct. 3, 2022, the Notice Packet was mailed, via U.S First Class Mail, to all 529 individuals contained in the Class List. Of the 529 notice packages, thirty-five were returned by the post office as undeliverable as addressed. And of the returned packages, one was remailed as a result of a forwarding address provided by the United States Postal Service, twenty-seven were remailed as a result of ILYM Group's skip tracing efforts, and seven remain undeliverable because no updated address could be found. The deadline for class members to object to or opt out of the settlement was Nov. 17, 2022. No class member has objected to the settlement, and one individual has opted out of the settlement. In light of the procedures, which adhere to the previously approved notice plan, the Court finds that the parties have sufficiently provided notice to the settlement class members. During the preliminary approval stage, the Court found no evidence of a conflict between the class and the representatives or counsel. No contrary evidence has emerged, and no issues have been raised by class members. Similarly, the Court finds that Class Counsel are experienced in class action litigation and have vigorously prosecuted this action on behalf of the class. The Court previously reviewed the agreement and concluded that the termination provision is fair and reasonable. Judge Tigar notes that the Settlement uses the same formula to calculate the settlement share for each class member, and, accordingly, treats all class members equally. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement treats class members equitably. The Court also finds, among other things, that the percentage of recovery fair and reasonable. The Court finds that Class Counsel's requested attorney's fee of 38% of the settlement fund is unreasonable and reduces the fee accordingly. That reduction by itself addresses any concern the Court has about the proportion of that fee to the class's recovery. Also, the difference between the Plaintiffs' counsel's requested fee and the actual fee will be added to the settlement fund, thereby, increasing the class's recovery. Accordingly, the Court finds that the presence of a disproportionate fee request and a clear sailing provision do not make the Settlement unfair, unreasonable, or inadequate. Class Counsel seeks the Court's approval of a $60,000 attorney's fee award, representing 38% of the Settlement Amount. However, the Court has concerns over other aspects of Class Counsel's lodestar. First, Class Counsel spent 41.7 hours on the unopposed motion for preliminary approval. Second, Class Counsel estimates that they will spend 27 hours to close out case. Judge Tigar says these hours are excessive. Nevertheless, even if the Court were to reduce by half the hours expended on the motion for preliminary approval and to close out the case, the lodestar multiplier would still be less than one, even using the Ninth Circuit's benchmark fee award of 25%. Thus, for purposes of the lodestar crosscheck, Judge Tigar holds that Class Counsel has established that their requested fees are reasonable. For these reasons, the Court will award the Plaintiffs' counsel a benchmark attorney's fee of 25% of the Settlement Amount, or $39,250. Class Counsel seeks reimbursement of $20,809.89 in expenses. Judge Tigar notes that Class Counsel has provided itemized lists of the costs and expenses separated by category. The expenses are routine costs associated with litigation, including expert fees, mediation fees, filing fees, and service of process fees. The Court finds Class Counsel's expenses reasonable and grants the request. The Plaintiffs seek incentive awards of $5,000. They argue that the awards are reasonable because of their efforts, risks undertaken for the payment of attorneys' fees and costs if the action had been lost, general releases of all claims arising from their employment, stigma upon future employment opportunities for having sued a former employer, as well as the recoveries for every Settlement Class Member, and benefits to current and future employees. As an initial matter, the Court denies the request for an incentive award to plaintiff Sergio Bernal-Rodriguez. Although Bernal-Rodriguez is a member of the class, Judge Tigar opines that he is not a named plaintiff, and he does not serve the other class members in a representative capacity. Only named plaintiffs, as opposed to designated class members who are not named plaintiffs, are eligible for reasonable incentive payments, Judge Tigar points out. Turning to the requested award for Sanft, the Court notes that $5,000 is 7.25% of the net settlement received by the class, even after reducing the Plaintiff's counsel's attorney's fee, and almost fifty-five times the average amount received by individual class members. The time Sanft spent assisting Class Counsel with the development of information pertaining to the case, such as conducting document review and consulting with Class Counsel on discovery responses, does not compensate for this discrepancy. The Court approves a reduced incentive award of $1,500. Class Counsel seeks $10,980 in administration costs for ILYM Group. ILYM Group case manager Makenna Snow submitted a declaration outlining the work that ILYM Group performed and will perform to distribute the settlement, including mailing the notice packages and conducting skip tracing on the undeliverable notice packages. The Court finds that the requested costs of $10,980 are reasonable in light of the work that ILYM and will perform. The parties have agreed that $7,500 from the settlement fund will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency as civil penalties provided for in the PAGA. The Court finds this reasonable and approves the payment. For these reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. For the reasons set forth in its Sept. 2, 2022 order, the Court confirms its certification of the class for settlement purposes only; 2. The Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement agreement; 3. The Court grants Class Counsel $39,250, or 25% of the common fund, in attorney's fees. The Court will withhold ten percent of the awarded attorney's fees and expenses and interest earned thereon until a post-distribution accounting has been filed. A post-distribution accounting must be filed within 21 days after the distribution of settlement funds; 4. The Court grants Class Counsel $20,809.89 in expenses; 5. The Court grants a service award of $1,500 to Plaintiff Sanft. The request for a service award to Plaintiff Bernal-Rodriguez is denied; 6. The Court grants $10,980 in settlement administration costs; 7. The Court grants $7,500 to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency as PAGA penalties; 8. Class members who asked to opt out of the settlement are excluded from the class; 9. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over this settlement solely for the purposes of enforcing this agreement, addressing settlement administration matters, and addressing such post-judgment matters as may be appropriate under Court rules and applicable law; and 10. Judgment is entered on the terms set forth in this Order. The clerk will close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3cemrdyc from PacerMonitor.com. SOUND SEAL: Maldonado Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Fabricators ------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL SANCHEZ MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUND SEAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-30115 (D. Mass., October 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay timely wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts General Laws. Mr. Maldonado worked as a fabricator in the Defendant's manufacturing facility in Agawam, Massachusetts from approximately March 2003 through July 2023. Sound Seal Inc. is a manufacturer of commercial and architectural acoustic noise control products, headquartered in Agawam, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com - and - William G. Madsen, Esq. MADSEN PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU LLC 402 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 246-2466 E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.co - and - Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. Christian Mercado, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com mercado@pechmanlaw.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Breach of Contract Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the breach of Contract of Carriage class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco. On August 26, 2021, a complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco. The complaint alleges that the Company breached its Contract of Carriage and other alleged agreements in connection with its use of the allegedly defective MAX aircraft manufactured by The Boeing Company. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who provided valuable consideration, whether in money or other form (e.g., voucher, miles/points, etc.), in exchange for a ticket for air transportation with the Company, which transportation took place between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a multi-faceted motion challenging the complaint based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the existence of a prior-filed complaint on appeal in the Fifth Circuit (the "Sherman Complaint"), improper venue, and failure to state a claim, and seeking to have the complaint's class contentions stricken. That motion was fully briefed by both parties and was argued to a United States Magistrate Judge on June 27, 2022. On July 5, 2022, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part and ordered the case stayed until the issuance of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Sherman Complaint. On November 28, 2022, the parties jointly notified the Court of the Fifth Circuit's decision regarding the Sherman Complaint. On March 23, 2023, the parties jointly notified the Court of the dismissal of the Sherman Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. is a domestic airline that provides primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services. The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the securities laws violation class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. On February 19, 2020, a complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas (the "2020 Securities Litigation"). A lead plaintiff has been appointed in the case, and an amended complaint was filed on July 2, 2020. The amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 7, 2017, and January 29, 2020. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and alleges that the Company made material misstatements to investors regarding the Company's safety and maintenance practices and its compliance with federal regulations and requirements. The amended complaint generally seeks money damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. On August 17, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 1, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a reply on or about October 21, 2020. On September 20, 2023, the District Court issued an opinion granting the Company's motion to dismiss as to all claims. On October 5, 2023, the District Court entered a final judgment dismissing the suit in its entirety with prejudice. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the amended complaint. The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. is a domestic airline that provides primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services. The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the federal securities laws violation class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. Two complaints alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action have been filed (on January 10, 2023 and March 13, 2023, respectively) against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. The complaints seek damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between June 13, 2020, and December 31, 2022. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and allege that the Company made material misstatements to investors regarding the Company's internal technology and alleged vulnerability to large-scale flight disruptions. The complaints generally seek money damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The deadline in the first of these two cases to file a motion seeking appointment of lead plaintiff was March 13, 2023; four separate motions were filed, and three of the parties seeking appointment have continued to contest the issue. On July 17, 2023, the Court signed an order consolidating the two federal securities cases into the first-filed suit and also appointed plaintiff Michael Berry as lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, with his counsel of record to serve as lead counsel and liaison counsel. On September 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that expanded the class period to include persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 4, 2020, and March 14, 2023, while continuing to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged misstatements regarding the Company's internal technology and alleged vulnerability to large-scale flight disruptions. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. is a domestic airline that provides primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services. The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN] SPIRIT AIRLINES: Dec. 11 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ Spirit Airlines Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2023, that the final approval hearing for the $8.3 million settlement in the Cox Class Suit is set for December 11, 2023. In 2017, the Company was sued in the Eastern District of New York in a purported class action, Cox, et al. v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., alleging state-law claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud relating to the Company's practice of charging fees for ancillary products and services. The original action was dismissed by the District Court; however, following the plaintiff's appeal to the Second Circuit, the case was remanded to the District Court for further review on the breach of contract claim. A hearing on the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was held on December 10, 2021. The Court granted the plaintiff's class certification motion and denied Spirit's summary judgment motion on March 29, 2022. The Company subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on April 26, 2022, and an oral argument was held on May 19, 2022. The Court denied Spirit's motion for reconsideration on February 14, 2023. On April 3, 2023, Spirit moved to compel arbitration of and/or dismiss certain class members' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Trial was set to begin on January 16, 2024. In June 2023, the Company reached a tentative settlement in mediation for a maximum amount of $8.3 million. The Court issued a preliminary approval order on September 21, 2023, and the final approval hearing is scheduled for December 11, 2023. Spirit Airlines -- https://www.spirit.com/ -- is the leading Ultra Low Cost Carrier in the United States, the Caribbean and Latin America.[BN] SPLUNK INC: $30MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 22 --------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION IN RE SPLUNK INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 4:20-cv-08600-JST Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Splunk Inc. ("Splunk") during the period from May 21, 2020 to December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and continued to hold any Splunk common stock after December 2, 2020 (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been provisionally certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $30,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. The Action involves allegations that Splunk and certain of its senior officers violated federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiff alleges that, during the period from May 21, 2020 through December 2, 2020, Splunk, Splunk's Chief Executive Officer Douglas Merritt, and Splunk's Chief Financial Officer Jason Child made certain material misrepresentations and omissions about whether Splunk was continuing to invest in marketing and continuing to hire and retain sales professionals in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that Merritt and Child controlled Splunk when the alleged misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants deny the allegations in the Action and deny any violations of the federal securities laws. Issues and defenses at issue in the Action included (i) whether Defendants made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused class members' losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any. A hearing will be held on February 22, 2024 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom 6 of the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated January 30, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Splunk Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173000, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-388-1755. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.SplunkSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than February 15, 2024, or submit it online by this date. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 25, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be submitted to the Court no later than January 25, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Splunk, any other Defendants or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Splunk Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173000 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (877) 388-1755 www.SplunkSecuritiesLitigation.com By Order of the Court STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Black & Decker Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Rammohan class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00369-KAD (the "Rammohan Class Action:), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the Company's products amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all respects. Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools, power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial customers.[BN] TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Guitang Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lee Guitang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01087 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12509-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Talcott Resolution Life Insurance Company -- http://www.talcottresolution.com/-- provides insurance services. The Company offers life insurance and annuity products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Ethan S. Binder, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Fax: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ebinder@scott-scott.com - and - David Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT LLP 156 S. Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: (860) 531-2608 Email: arusi@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Meghana D. Shah, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND 1114 Avenue of the Americas, Ste 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 389-5000 Email: meghanashah@eversheds-sutherland.com TED FOUNDATION: Sutton et al. Sue Over Disclosure of Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY SUTTON, ZAINAB SALMAN, DAVID RAMIREZ, and TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TED FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-09219 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Defendant produces a wide variety of pre-recorded videos that are watched by millions of consumers nationwide. These platforms are accessible via browser on Defendant's website, as well as on mobile via the TED App on Android and Apple devices. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, however, Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its users' personally identifiable information -- including a record of every video viewed by the user--to unrelated third parties. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's violations of the VPPA. TED Foundation, Inc. is a charitable organization that develops, owns, and operates the TED App and Ted.com website, which are both used throughout the United States and globally. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzhak Kopel, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the America, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com TRANS UNION LLC: Theodore Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union LLC. The case is styled as Wilson Theodore, Lashanda Theodore, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00537-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va., Oct. 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Transunion -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- offers total credit protection all in one place from credit score, credit report and credit alert.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Mark Clifton Leffler, Esq. Thomas Dean Domonoske, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com mark@clalegal.com TRITON LOGISTICS: Roman Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS ROMAN, individually and and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRITON LOGISTICS, INC. and ANDREW VOVERIS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-15146 (N.D. Ill., October 19, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiff Roman was employed by Defendants as a company driver from approximately May 2023 until the end of September 2023. In his class action complaint, Plaintiff challenges the following unlawful practices of Defendants: misclassifying drivers as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees; failing to pay all wages owed to drivers; taking unlawful and excessive deductions from drivers’ wages; and failing to reimburse drivers for expenses. Headquartered in Romeoville, IL, Triton Logistics is a motor carrier located in Romeoville, IL, which transports general freight for its customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233.1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Rachel Smit, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com rachel@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com TTEC GOVERNMENT: Von Den Stemmen Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KRISTALL VON DEN STEMMEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TTEC GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; TTEC HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2023CUOEO12975, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 19, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-08806 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor and business practices that violated the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in Colorado, TTEC Holdings, Inc. is a digital global customer experience technology and services company. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Heather L. Shook, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 505 Howard St. Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 344-7000 Facsimile: (415) 344-7050 E-mail: HShook@perkinscoie.com TYRONE OLIVER: Butler Files Suit in S.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tyrone Oliver, et al. The case is styled as Darryl Pernell Butler, on behalf of all other inmates at Coastal State Prison in similarly situated, and all other inmates who were housed at Coastal State Prison from June of 2022 until present v. Tyrone Oliver, Commissioner of GDC, in his Individual and Official capacity; Timothy Ward, former Commissioner of the Department of Correction, in his Individual and Official capacity; Ahmed Holt Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Department's Facilities Division, in his Individual and Official capacity; Robert Toole, Director of the Department's Field Operations Division, in his Individual and Official capacity; Stan Shepard, Southeast Regional Director for the Department, in his Individual and Official capacity; Jack Sauls Assistant Commissioner in Charge of the Department's Health Services, in his Individual and Official capacity; Aaron Pinerio Warden of Coastal State Prison, in his Individual and Official capacity; Phillip Glenn Deputy Warden of Security at Coastal State Prison, in his Individual and Official capacity; Jones Deputy Warden of Security at Coastal State Prison, in his Individual and Official capacity; Briania Kaigle Deputy Warden of Care and Treatment at Coastal State Prison, in her Individual and Official capacity; Coretta Williams Deputy Warden of Administration at Coastal State Prison, in her Individual and Official capacity; Gwen Food Service Director at Coastal State Prison, in their Individual and Official capacity; Washington Overseer of Aramark employees assigned to Coastal State Prison, in their Individual and Official capacity; Doyle, Contract worker employed by Aramark, in their Individual and Official capacity; Harris, Contract worker employed by Aramark, in their Individual and Official capacity; Mieres, Health Service Administrative at Coastal State Prison, in their Individual and Official capacity; Henry, Counsel at Coastal State Prison, in her Individual and Official capacity; Billy Joe Lumpkin, Inmate at Coastal State Prison, in his Individual and Official capacity; Ham, Contract worker employed by Aramark, in their Individual and Official capacity; Brown, in their Individual and Official capacity; Case No. 4:23-cv-00311-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., Oct. 24, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner - Prison Condition. Tyrone Oliver was named Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in July 2019 by Governor Brian P. Kemp.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED STATES: 3rd Amended Complaint in Oldaker v. Giles Stricken ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge W. Louis Sands, Sr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, strikes from the record the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint in the lawsuit styled YANIRA YESENIA OLDAKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. THOMAS P. GILES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00224-WLS (M.D. Ga.). By Order ("Order Correcting Caption") entered Sept. 30, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Correct Names of Defendants and Add/Drop Parties ("Motion to Correct"). The Order Correcting Caption required the Plaintiffs to correct, add and/or drop the names of the Defendants as requested in the Motion to Correct. Apparently in an attempt to comply with the Court's requirement to add and/or drop the names of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and for Damages. The Plaintiffs were not authorized to file an amended complaint, Judge Sands opines. The Court recognizes that the Order Correcting Caption should have directed the Clerk to amend the caption and to that extent, it amends the Order Correcting Caption. Accordingly, Judge Sands orders that the Third Amended Complaint be and is stricken from the record. The Clerk is directed to make the following amendments to the Defendants' names in the caption of this case: a. Correct "Mia Mines" to "Walkiria Mines a.k.a. Mia Mines"; b. Correct "William Rabiou" to "Djibril Rabiou a.k.a. William Rabiou"; c. Drop the names of the seven "FNU" defendants sued in their individual and official capacities; d. Add the full names of those seven "FNU" Defendants as follows: i) Taura Amber Hughes, in her individual capacity; ii) Latoshia Coney, in her individual capacity and official capacity as an ICDC officer; iii) Nadine Faison, in her individual capacity; iv) Major Coretta Battle, in her individual capacity and official capacity as an ICDC officer; v) Janet Vaughn, in her individual capacity and official capacity as an ICDC officer; vi) Shannon Scott, in her individual capacity; and vii) Lieutenant Cheryl Slacks, in her individual capacity. Judge Sands also directs the Clerk to add the United States of America as a Defendant. The remainder of the Order Correcting Caption, including all deadlines set forth therein, and all findings and rulings on the Motion to Reconsider, Motion to Correct, and Motion to Extend, will remain in effect. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fdhd6pb from PacerMonitor.com. WALMART INC: Driskill Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cheryl Driskill, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. WALMART INC. d/b/a Walmart, Case No. CV 23 985655 was removed from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Cleveland, Ohio, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Oct. 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02095. The Plaintiff alleges claims under Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. DANN LAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 Email: notices@dannlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Richik Sarkar, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 990 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 413-3838 Fax: (216) 413-3839 Email: richik.sarkar@dinsmore.com WESTERN BEST: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Byars Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled KIZZY BYARS, et al., Plaintiff(s) v. WESTERN BEST LLC, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:19-cv-01690-JCM-DJA (D. Nev.), Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denies the Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. Defendant Western Best, LLC, moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff Danielle James responded and the Defendant replied. Also before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery and modify the pretrial scheduling order. The putative class action arises from a variety of alleged workplace violations. The first amended complaint was filed by two Plaintiffs and alleged failure to pay overtime wages, waiting time penalties, unpaid meal and rest breaks, hostile work environment, discrimination under state and federal law, tortious constructive discharge, and interference with contractual relations. Plaintiff Kizzy Byars has since been dismissed from this case, leaving only Plaintiff James. The Court ruled on the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint, dismissing her Title VII claims, without prejudice, as she failed to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court also dismissed the Plaintiff's interference with contractual relations claim for lacking sufficient factual allegations. The Plaintiff then filed her second amended complaint and alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies but did not otherwise amend her interference claim. Accordingly, all of the Plaintiff's claims in her second amended complaint remain to be adjudicated, except for her interference claim. A scheduling order set discovery from Oct. 5, 2021, to March 24, 2022. Discovery was extended three times. The first time extended the close of discovery from March of 2022 to May 23, 2022. Right before the May cut-off date, discovery was extended for a second time to July 25, 2022. A few days after the extension was granted, the Plaintiff's attorney moved to withdraw from the case. The Court granted the motion in July and simultaneously extended discovery for a third time--until Sept. 26, 2022. No further extensions were granted. The Plaintiff has not moved to certify this putative class action. The Defendant is a brothel, operating legally in Nye County, known as the "Chicken Ranch." The Plaintiff worked as a "courtesan," or legal prostitute, at the Chicken Ranch for approximately two years. At the beginning of her time at the Chicken Ranch, the Plaintiff entered into an "Independent Contractor's Agreement" with the Defendant. The agreement stipulated that the Defendant would provide the Plaintiff with a private room and access to the Chicken Ranch's facilities and clientele, the Plaintiff would negotiate and set her own prices for services, and she would pay the Chicken Ranch $39 per day for rent and bookkeeping, as well as 50% of her earned service fees. The Plaintiff claims she resigned from the Chicken Ranch due to intolerable harassment and discrimination. She, thereafter, filed this putative class action, alleging various violations of state and federal employment law. In response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff moves to reopen discovery. The Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to reopen discovery because she was without counsel from May 2022 to September 2022, and as such, could not conduct discovery or timely move to extend discovery. She provides evidence that she attempted to retain an attorney after her former counsel's withdrawal but does not otherwise follow the requirements of Local Rule 26-3 or cite relevant authority supporting her request to reopen discovery. LR 26-3 requires movants to provide the court with (a) a statement specifying the discovery completed; (b) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be completed; (c) reasons why discovery was not completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan, and (d) a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. By providing none of this information, Judge Mahan says the Plaintiff makes little effort to demonstrate how she has been diligent in discovery. The Plaintiff's former attorney did not withdraw until after the second discovery extension was granted. By then, discovery had been open for over seven months. She provides the Court with no explanation for why discovery was not completed within this time. Judge Mahan holds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to reopen discovery, and her motion must be denied. In its motion for summary judgment, the Defendant argues that summary judgment is warranted because the Plaintiff provides no authenticated evidence that she was the Defendant's employee. The Court agrees. Judge Mahan explains that attached to her response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment are four exhibits, none of which are authenticated. The Plaintiff must, therefore, produce a declaration or other appropriate affidavit providing a foundation for the admissibility of her evidence, Judge Mahan opines. Because the Defendant has produced sufficient evidence to negate an element of each of the Plaintiff's claims, and she provides no authenticated evidence of her own, Judge Mahan holds that she has not met her burden and summary judgment is appropriate. The Plaintiff also argues, among other things, that she is an employee under the "economic realities" test, which is the test federal courts employ when determining whether a person is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff makes an alternative claim for overtime wages under the FLSA in her second amended complaint. Under the economic realities test, a person is classified as an employee for FLSA purposes if they are, as a matter of economic reality, dependent upon the business to which they render service. Judge Mahan notes that there is no genuine dispute of fact that the Plaintiff was an employee under the FLSA. The reasons supporting the Court's finding that she was an independent contractor under her other claims also apply here, and the Court need not reiterate them. But the Court will highlight an important factor present in this analysis, not present in the others. The Defendant has provided evidence that the Plaintiff's opportunity for profit depended on her own managerial skills, Judge Mahan says. The Plaintiff could--and did--work for other brothels. She negotiated her own prices. She could also promote herself online, thereby, attracting more patrons, so long as she did not advertise her services outside of Nevada. Judge Mahan holds that the Plaintiff could, therefore, book more clients, work more hours, and earn more profit, based upon her ability to manage not only her time, but also herself. The Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on this final claim. Accordingly, Judge Mahan (i) denies the Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery, and (ii) grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant on all claims and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrpctu2d from PacerMonitor.com. WHEELING JESUIT UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wheeling Jesuit University, Inc. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wheeling Jesuit University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09345-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University of Indianapolis -- https://uindy.edu/ -- is a private United Methodist Church-affiliated university in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Right of Publicity Act class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 15, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) alleging ZoomInfo' use of Illinois residents' names in public-facing web pages violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo owns and operates a website that sells paid access to "the world's leading business database."[BN] ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2023 that the Company continues to defend itself from right of publicity class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On September 30, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging ZoomInfo's use of California residents' names in public-facing web pages violates California statutory and common law regarding the right of publicity as well as misappropriation, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo owns and operates a website that sells paid access to "the world's leading business database."[BN] ********* 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 ***