/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231109.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 9, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 225 Headlines 212 SMILING DENTIST: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York 2179 MONROE AVENUE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 23ANDME INC: Smith Files Suit in N.D. California 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Sutherland Sues Over Exposure to Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Vincent Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Wheatley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Wright Sues Over Exposure to Foams & Chemicals 4 R VENTURES: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec 26 ADVANCE AUTO: Faces Investor Class Action in North Carolina AIME LEON DORE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Cleveland Bakers Files Suit in D. Mass. AMERICAN BANKERS: Dahl Files Suit in D. Arizona AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR: Fry Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania AMERICAN HONDA: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in MacDougall Suit ASSURANCE IQ SERVICES: Marsh TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri AUDIBLE INC: Golden Appeals Judgment in Royalty Suit to 2nd Cir. B&G FOODS INC: Espinoza Suit Removed to C.D. California B. BRAUN: Judge Tosses Class Action v. Retirement Committee BAYER CORPORATION: Dawson Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania BERNSTEIN MEDICAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BET INTERACTIVE: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Evans Says BINGHAMTON HEALTH: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIOGEN INC: First Circuit Partially Revives Putative Class Action BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Jones Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. BOSTON TRADERS: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOWLERO CORP: Velasco Sues Over Discrimination and ADA Violation BROOKLYN DOORS: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BUCKEYE PIPE: Young Suit Removed to E.D. California BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Appeals Judgment in McCoy Suit to 4th Cir. CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Concussion Class Action Discontinued CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Ontiveros Suit Removed to C.D. California CARAT & CO: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CARESOURCE: Embert Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts CARESOURCE: Eslinger Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts CARESOURCE: Higham Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts CARESOURCE: Willis Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts CAROLMCCRAE LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS: Ceja Suit Removed to C.D. Pennsylvania CHELSEA GARDEN: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CIRCLE OF DRINK: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CLEAN HARBORS: Sanctis Suit Removed to N.D. California CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Pickett Suit COMPLETE NEUROLOGICAL: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CONTINENTAL WINE: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rapp Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 6th Cir. COSTCO: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Frozen Berries COUTURE HOUSE RENTALS: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DOCGO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 26 DOCGO INC: Faces Investor Class Action Lawsuit DOMINO'S PIZZA: Files Writ of Certiorari in Carmona Labor Suit DOUBLE D. RANCHWEAR: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DYNATA LLC: Shiftsmart Appeals Rulings in Davis Suit to 2nd Cir. EMS MANAGEMENT: Robinson Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina FRITO-LAY: Hinton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FUBOTV INC: Perez Alleges Disclosure of Personal Info to Facebook GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bailey Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Kennedy Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts HEWLETT ASSOCIATES: Quinatoa Appeals Ruling in Suit IANTHUS CAPITAL: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit JWB PROPERTY: Settles Former Tenants' Suit Over Improper Fees MALIVER PTY: Fraud Victims File Class Action Against Auditors MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Perrone Suit Gets Initial Nod MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Rogers Suit Gets Initial Nod MIDJOURNEY INC: California Court Tosses Copyright Class Action MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Lattimore Sues Over Deceptive Financing Policies NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces New Lawsuit Over Agent Commissions NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Liable to Pay $1.78 Billion in Damages NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Leone Appeals Summary Judgment to 1st Cir. NAUTO INC: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Law Violations NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Outdoor Dining Program Nuisance NOVO NORDISK: Faces Class Action Over Ozempic Side Effects PAPA JOHN'S: Curd Appeals Privacy Rights Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. PENSION BENEFIT: Feregrino Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PENSION BENEFIT: Garrison Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PIEDMONT HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over User Data Sharing PSP GROUP: Adams Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Circuit PURFOODS LLC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Breach RALPH ROWE: Ontario Court Okays $13.25MM Class Action Settlement RETURN TO NATURE: Sued Over Improper Storage of Human Remains RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Miller Class Suit SECURITY LIFE: PHT Appeals Judgment in Excessive Fees Suit SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend 2020 Securities Class Suit STERILIZATION SERVICES: Sued Over Toxic Ethylene Oxide Pollution SUNPOWER CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 26 TESLA INC: Faces Class Actions in Quebec Over Paint Deterioration TROPIX MEDIA: Baeza Appeals Ruling in Weingeist Suit to 2nd Cir. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Over eCourts Software Expanded UNITED STATES: Wa. Woman Joins Discrimination Class Action v. DND WEST VIRGINIA: Accused of Destroying Documents in Jail Class Action WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss Ruling WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Premier Lauds Stolen Wages Class Action Deal WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Stolen Wages Class Action Settled for $165-MM [*] Institutional Investors Join Suit to Affect Corp. Governance [*] Opioid-Related Law in Alberta Launched for Class Suit Process [*] Quebec Gov't Introduces Bill to Join Opioid Class Action ********* 212 SMILING DENTIST: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 212 Smiling Dentist, PLLC. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 212 Smiling Dentist, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08041 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 212 Smiling Dentist, PLLC -- https://www.212smiling.com/ -- are a dedicated dental practice with a general dentist, periodontist, prosthodontist, and dental lab on site.[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 2179 MONROE AVENUE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2179 Monroe Avenue, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 2179 Monroe Avenue, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09455 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2179 Monroe Avenue, Inc. is a miscellaneous home furnishings store.[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 23ANDME INC: Smith Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 23andMe, Inc. The case is styled as LaQuisha Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-05548 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2023). The nature of suit is as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. 23andMe -- https://www.23andme.com/ -- offers DNA testing with the most comprehensive ancestry breakdown, personalized health insights and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Alexander Smith, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 201 Spear St., Ste. 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Email: msmith@classlawdc.com 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn D. Smith,, 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-05312-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: Sutherland Sues Over Exposure to Foams & Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- Eddie L. Sutherland, 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-05314-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: Vincent Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Stuart Vincent, 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-05316-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; and hyperthyroidism 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: Wheatley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Wheatley, 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-05317-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; and liver 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: Wright Sues Over Exposure to Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Celestine Wright, 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-05318-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 jwitkin@awkolaw.com 4 R VENTURES: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 4 R Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 4 R Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09466 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4 R Ventures, LLC is an e-commerce service in Fox Crossing, Wisconsin.[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 ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of (i) persons or entities who purchased AdaptHealth Corp. (NASDAQ: AHCO) common stock between August 4, 2020 and February 27, 2023, and/or (ii) AdaptHealth common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's secondary public offering ("SPO") conducted January 5, 2021. AdaptHealth is a distributor of home medical equipment that principally provides home medical supplies for chronic health conditions including diabetes, sleep apnea, and wound care. For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. What is this Case About: AdaptHealth Corp. (AHCO) Misrepresented the Success and Growth of its Diabetes Segment According to the complaint, during the class period, AdaptHealth misstated the Company's true ability to generate organic growth in its diabetes segment and engaged in improper upcoding and other illicit billing practices. Moreover, the SPO Offering Materials contained untrue statements of material fact and failed to make the necessary disclosures required of these documents. On February 27, 2023, the Company announced a surprise loss of $0.02 per share for the fourth quarter of 2022, which was significantly lower than the gain of $0.27 per share that analysts and investors were led to expect. The Company also reduced its guidance for 2023, lowering revenue expectations it had provided just seven weeks earlier by over 1.5%. On this news, the Company's share price fell by $5.99 per share, or 27%, to close at $15.99 per share. What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against AdaptHealth Corp. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motion for lead plaintiff by December 26 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against AdaptHealth Corp. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] ADVANCE AUTO: Faces Investor Class Action in North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Advance Auto Parts Inc. touted its price-cutting initiatives, keeping its stock price inflated until a financial report in May showed the company's revenue hadn't covered product costs, an investor says in a proposed class action. The retailer's misrepresentations about the impact of its strategy led to a 35% stock drop on May 31, shareholder Brian Watson says in his complaint, filed Oct. 27 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. COURT: E.D.N.C. TRACK DOCKET: No. 5:23-cv-00611 [GN] AIME LEON DORE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aime Leon Dore, Inc. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aime Leon Dore, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08047 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aime Leon Dore -- https://www.aimeleondore.com/ -- is a fashion and lifestyle brand based out of New York City.[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 AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Cleveland Bakers Files Suit in D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amag Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amag Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Covis Group S.a.r.l., Case No. 1:23-cv-12575-FDS (D. Mass., Oct. 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Racketeering (RICO) Act. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.amagpharma.com/-- is an American pharmaceutical company developing products that treat iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in adult patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO One Faneuil Hall Sq., 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 482-3700 Fax: (617) 482-3300 Email: Tom@hbsslaw.com AMERICAN BANKERS: Dahl Files Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida. The case is styled as Brendan Dahl, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Case No. 3:23-cv-08584-DLR (D. Ariz., Oct. 26, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Insurance Contract for Breach of Contract. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, doing business as Assurant -- http://www.assurant.com/-- operates as an insurance firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES PSC 110 W Vine St., Ste. 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (800) 614-1957 - and - James Brandon McWherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Ste. 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: (615) 354-1144 - and - Michaile Berg, Esq. BERG LAW 8710 E Vista Bonita Dr. Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Phone: (480) 745-7445 Email: mberg@berg.law - and - Thomas Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 S 5th St. Ste. 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 448-2600 Email: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR: Fry Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. The case is styled as Sherry Fry, Brittini Barnes, Brittany Cabral, Tristan Fairbanks, Janet Ojo, Jessica Stewart, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01782-CCC (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. -- https://www.honda.com/ -- is the North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company.[BN] The Plaintiffs areW represented by: Jody B. Burton, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Email: jburton@lemberglaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in MacDougall Suit -------------------------------------------------------- HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC. filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled DENNIS MACDOUGALL, et al. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01079-JGB-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. Prior to this, Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered a minute order in chambers on October 3, 2023, granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. The Court also appointed the law firms of Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP; Berger & Montague, P.C.; and Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman as class counsel. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Property Damage. The appellate case is captioned MacDougall, et al. v. Honda North America, Inc., Case No. 23-2859, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 18, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Isham Cason Hewgley, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77002 - and - Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq. KING AND SPALDING, LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Anne M. Voigts, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 601 S. California Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Plaintiffs-Respondents DENNIS MACDOUGALL, et al., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC (NY) 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 - and - Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON, LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 - and - Shimon Yiftach, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 ASSURANCE IQ SERVICES: Marsh TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cindy Marsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Assurance IQ Services, LLC, Gemjen Investment Services, Inc., John and Jane Does 1 through 10, Case No. 23SL-CC03834 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01361 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Assurance IQ, Inc. -- https://assurance.com/ -- provides software solutions. The Company offers insurance platform for protecting and improving the personal and financial health of all consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Timothy Michael Guntli, Esq. DENTONS US LLP - St. Louis One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3000 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 241-1800 Email: timothy.guntli@dentons.com AUDIBLE INC: Golden Appeals Judgment in Royalty Suit to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GOLDEN UNICORN ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Audible, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07059, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs seek to recover royalty payments owed to them and Class members for audio distribution rights in their works that the Defendant systemically withheld from thousands of authors, in bad faith, and in violation of its contracts with those authors. On Mar. 6, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Jesse M. Furman on Sept. 20, 2023. The parties' other pending substantive motions were denied as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions, to enter judgment for the Defendant in accordance with the Opinion and Order as well as the Court's Opinions and Orders of December 8, 2021, and July 14, 2023. Accordingly, the case was closed. The appellate case is captioned Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., Case No. 23-7407, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 18, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GOLDEN UNICORN ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher R. Bagley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN 555 South Mangum Street, Suite 800 Durham, NC 27701 Defendant-Appellee AUDIBLE, INC. is represented by: Brian D. Buckley, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 401 Union Street, 5th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 B&G FOODS INC: Espinoza Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Esther Espinoza, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. B&G FOODS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Case No. 23STCV18764 was removed from entitled action 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. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09096. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges five causes of action for: violation of California Civil Code Section 1750; violation of the California Unfair Competition law, Section 17200; violation of the California False Advertising Law, Section 17500; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and breach of express warranty.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Borden, Esq. David H. Kwasniewski, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 351 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 599-0210 Fax: (415) 276-1808 Email: borden@braunhagey.com kwasniewski@braunhagey.com B. BRAUN: Judge Tosses Class Action v. Retirement Committee ----------------------------------------------------------- Brown Mills Klinck Prezioso LLP on Oct. 31 disclosed that a Pennsylvania judge dismissed a class action brought by pharmaceutical company employees against their employer's retirement committee over investment fees and recordkeeping costs they alleged were excessively high. Launched in 2020, the class action originally accused B. Braun Medical Inc., its board of directors and the retirement committee of breaching their fiduciary duties to plan members by failing to investigate or select lower-cost investments and monitor or control recordkeeping expenses. By the time the matter reached a hearing, only the claim against the retirement committee had survived a series of pre-trial motions and dismissals. However, the judge hearing the case dismissed all remaining claims. According to the August 18, 2023 ruling, the committee's selection process for its investments and recordkeeping services, each involving the retention of third-party advisors, was reasonably prudent. In addition, the judge found that the actual investment options and recordkeeping costs selected by the committee were "objectively prudent," based in part on the strong performance of its pricier target date funds and benchmarking studies indicating that the plan paid lower than average recordkeeping fees for much of the subject period. [GN] BAYER CORPORATION: Dawson Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniela Dawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER CORPORATION AND BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05329 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04153-MRP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Bayer AG -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- is a German multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company and is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin K. Cho, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Amy Yongmee Cho, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 111 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-7700 BERNSTEIN MEDICAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bernstein Medical, P.C. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bernstein Medical, P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-07988 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bernstein Medical -- https://www.bernsteinmedical.com/ -- is the center for Hair Restoration is a state-of-the-art hair restoration facility and international hair loss referral center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BET INTERACTIVE: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Evans Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MCKENZIE EVANS and DENISE BRINKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BET INTERACTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01978 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2023) is a class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act arising from Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to Meta Platforms, Inc. or Facebook, information which identifies Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided to Defendant by Facebook. That pixel tracked Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' video viewing history while on Defendant's website and reported the viewing history to Facebook along with Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' unique Facebook Identification numbers. The Defendant knowingly violated the VPPA by embedding the Meta Pixel within its website and sharing Plaintiffs' and the Class Members’ video viewing history, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiffs, who became digital subscribers by registering for an account with Defendant, seek actual damages but not less than liquidated damages in an amount of $2,500 for each and every violation of the VPPA committed by Defendant, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and any other available preliminary or equitable relief deemed appropriate by the Court. BET INTERACTIVE, LLC operates a website, www.bet.plus, that offers both prerecorded and live-stream videos to individuals who subscribe to its services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW. P.A. 515 E las Olas Blvd. Ste 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com BINGHAMTON HEALTH: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Binghamton Health Campaign, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Binghamton Health Campaign, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09468 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Binghamton Health Campaign Incorporated was established on Jan 08 2016 as a domestic business corporation.[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 BIOGEN INC: First Circuit Partially Revives Putative Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP disclosed that on October 11, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain of its former executives. Shash v. Biogen, Inc., --F.4th --, 2023 WL 6617278 (1st Cir. 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misstatements and omissions regarding the clinical trial results of the company's drug to treat Alzheimer's. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but the First Circuit reversed the dismissal in part, holding that plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient with respect to one challenged statement, while affirming that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to other challenged statements. Plaintiffs' allegations relate to the Company's two Phase III clinical trials. While the aggregated results from these clinical trials suggested that the drug was not effective, the company analyzed subgroups of patients within these clinical trials and concluded that the drug had efficacy at a higher dosage. Id. at *2. In particular, the Company's Chief Medical Officer stated during an earnings call that "you really need to get to that higher dose" and "I think our data are all consistent with that." Id. at *3. After the company applied for FDA approval for the drug, the FDA convened an Advisory Committee to review the drug. Id. at *4. Plaintiffs allege that the Company's stock fell when an FDA statistical reviewer suggested that the clinical trial data did not demonstrate the drug's efficacy at a higher dose, and that the stock fell further when the Advisory Committee concluded that the clinical trials had not demonstrated the drug's efficacy. Id. Ultimately, however, the drug did receive FDA approval. Id. The Court first explained that the "all data" statement plausibly conveyed three facts: that the Chief Medical Officer believed all the company's data was consistent with needing to get to a high dose of the drug to provide a clinical benefit; that this opinion fairly aligned with the facts known to him when he made the statement; and that this opinion was informed by the type of inquiry that a reasonable investor would expect given the circumstances. Id. at *6. The Court noted that plaintiffs alleged other Company data suggested that certain patients who received a high dose of the drug did not achieve better clinical outcomes when compared to those who received the placebo, that certain patients who initially received a higher dose of the drug did not experience better clinical outcomes after a dosing protocol was changed in the trials, and, in fact, only a limited subgroup of patients had results that suggested a higher dose demonstrated the drug's efficacy. Id. The Court found that these allegations plausibly suggested that "all" the Company's data did not support that a higher dose contributed to the drug's efficacy, and that this statement was material. Id. The Court further held that plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter with respect to this statement. Id. at *8. The Court determined that because the Company allegedly invested significant resources into analyzing subgroups and repeatedly discussed certain aspects of the results of those subgroups, the alleged failure to disclose the subgroup data that did not support the challenged statement was "a highly unreasonable omission," giving rise to a "strong inference of scienter." Id. The Court, however, held that plaintiffs' allegations of scienter were insufficient with respect to other challenged statements. Id. at *9. For these other statements, the Court generally found that no factual allegations suggested that the Company (i) knew the clinical trial data was inconsistent with the challenged statements, (ii) had otherwise been warned that data did not support the challenged statements, or (iii) subjectively believed the FDA's statistical reviewer's conclusions over the Company's conclusions. Id. at *9–10. The Court noted that, other than the one statistical reviewer, the FDA had generally supported the Company's conclusions, which undercut any suggestion that the Company did not believe in its drug's efficacy. Id. at *10. The Court also concluded that the Company had stated clearly what data it was withholding from the public, that the company disclosed it was examining its data following the completion of clinical trials that had otherwise failed to show the drug's efficacy, and that the Company acknowledged it was being deliberate about its data releases while the drug was undergoing FDA review, all of which undermined a strong inference of scienter. Id. at *10–11. The Court also concluded that, while plaintiffs alleged irregularities in the FDA's review process, those were irregularities by the FDA, not by the company. Id. at *12. And the Court rejected the suggestion that the Company's executives knew that subgroup data undercut certain statements regarding the drug's efficacy or were reckless in not investigating the subgroup data, since the alleged inconsistencies were "not obvious" and "scienter requires more than 'simple, or even excusable, negligence.'" Id. The Court went on to conclude that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged loss causation, even though the company's stock price did not appear to fall immediately after the FDA's statistical reviewer's report was released. Id. at *13. Because defendants focused their arguments on the timing of when the Company's stock fell relative to the report -- which was the basis of the lower court's holding that loss causation was lacking -- the Court determined that, for purposes of the appeal, defendants had waived any argument as to whether the report met the definition of a corrective disclosure. Id. The Court explained that many courts had held that a stock drop does not need to immediately follow a corrective disclosure in order to plead loss causation, and some courts had found loss causation adequately alleged even where a company's stock price initially increased following an alleged corrective disclosure. Id. at *14. The Court concluded that defendants' arguments regarding the timing of the Company's stock's price movements in relation to the release of the report raised questions of fact not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss, and therefore did not suffice to demonstrate that plaintiffs had failed to plead loss causation at this stage. Id. [GN] BLOOMINGDALES.COM LLC: Jones Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- ANN JONES is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Ann Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01095-SEP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's use of session replay software on its website. The Plaintiff asserts that session replay software, such as that used by the Defendant, allows a company to intercept and record a website visitor's communications with the website, including mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, and search terms in real time while the visitor browses the website. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's use of session replay "spyware" is akin to eavesdropping and violates website visitors' reasonable expectations of privacy. On Jan. 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, bringing 10 counts against the Defendant pursuant to state and federal law, including: violations of the Missouri Wiretap Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and for invasion of privacy - intrusion upon seclusion, trespass to chattels, and conversion to chattels. On Feb. 16, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk granted the motion on Sept. 18, 2023. The Court held that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that she suffered a concrete harm, and thus she has failed to satisfy the injury-in-fact element required for Article III standing. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's claims, they must be dismissed. Hence, the case was dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions in the case were denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned Ann Jones v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, Case No. 23-3304, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 17, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on November 27, 2023; -- Appellant Ann Jones brief is due on November 27, 2023; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANN JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Maureen Kane Berg, Esq. Karen Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL Suite 2200 100 Washington Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE Suite 1700 100 Washington Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 (612) 767-3613 - and - Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL 308 Hutchinson Road Ballwin, MO 63011 Defendant-Appellee BLOOMINGDALES.COM, LLC is represented by: Eric C. Bosset, Esq. Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING One City Center 850 Tenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 (202) 662-5217 - and - Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq. Ziwei Song, Esq. Matthew Q. Verdin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING Suite 5400 415 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-7078 (415) 591-7024 (415) 591-7065 - and - Chad D. Silker, Esq. MACY'S INC. Suite 400 11477 Olde Cabin Road Saint Louis, MO 63141 BOSTON TRADERS: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boston Traders, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Boston Traders, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09469 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boston Traders -- https://bostontraders.com/ -- is tailored for the everyday outdoorsman who seeks a functional wardrobe that will withstand the wear and tear of his travels.[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 BOWLERO CORP: Velasco Sues Over Discrimination and ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby Velasco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BOWLERO CORP., AMF BOWLING CENTERS, INC., AMF BOWLING WORLDWIDE, INC., Case No. 23STCV26310 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 27, 2023), is brought alleging that the Defendant's violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the anti-discrimination state statutes of California, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ("Unruh Act"), the California Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA"). On July 21, 2023, the Plaintiff patronized Bowlero to bowl and suffered discrimination as a result of being denied full and equal Specifically, this bowling alley denied Plaintiff equal access because it did not provide an accessible parking lot and/or restroom. First, Plaintiff was deterred from parking in a handicap accessible parking space because the parking lot did not have an adequate number of van accessible parking spaces. Further, the parking lot did not provide accessible and/or van accessible parking signage and/or did not provide an additional sign or language below the symbol of accessibility stating "minimum fine $250.00", so as to deter the use of handicap accessible parking spaces by persons who are not disabled. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to park in a handicap parking space. Once inside the bowling alley, Plaintiff was denied equal access to the bowling alley's restroom. Initially, Plaintiff was unable to access the restroom without assistance due to the excessive force required by her to open the restroom door, and because the restroom door closer is not adjusted to allow the bathroom door to remain open for at least 3 seconds, making it not possible for her to wheel herself inside, unassisted. In addition, Plaintiff deterred from using the restroom because the toilet seat cover dispenser is mounted excessively high and out of reach, such that Plaintiff was unable to reach and use the sanitary product. As a result, Plaintiff did not use the toilet. Prior to exiting the restroom, Plaintiff was deterred from using the facilities because the soap dispensers, paper towel dispensers, and auto-dryers are each mounted excessively high and out of reach, such that Plaintiff was unable to wash and dry her hands. Finally, Plaintiff was further deterred from using the facilities because pipes under the sink are uncovered and Plaintiff feared burning her legs. As a result, Plaintiff deterred from using the restroom in its entirety. The Defendants have discriminated and are discriminating against Plaintiff, and others similarly situated by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities, as described below, and quired by both the California Standards and by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and requires a wheelchair to move about. The Defendants operate as many as 21 bowling alleys in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY SMITH 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 BROOKLYN DOORS: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Doors, Inc. The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Doors, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08050 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooklyn Doors Inc. -- https://www.doorsinstock.com/ -- specializes in modern, traditional, contemporary exterior and interior doors as well as door hardware, fireplaces, flooring, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com BUCKEYE PIPE: Young Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Young, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BUCKEYE PIPE LINE SERVICES COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. CV2023-2011 was removed from entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02493-WBS-AC. The Complaint asserts three wage and hour causes of action for: failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and waiting time penalties, plus a claim for unfair business practices based on the foregoing.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ellen Connelly Cohen, Bar No. 276458 CALL & JENSEN A Professional Corporation 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 717-3000 Email: ecohen@calljensen.com BUREAU OF ALCOHOL: Appeals Judgment in McCoy Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Joshua McCoy, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-REP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. On Nov. 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on Nov. 30, 2022. On Aug. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On Aug. 31, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on the merits of Count I of the first amended complaint and Count I of the second amended complaint and a dismissal without prejudice of Count II of the first amended complaint and Count II of the second amended complaint. The Order was signed by Judge Robert E. Payne. The appellate case is captioned Joshua McCoy v. ATF, Case No. 23-2085, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 17, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSHUA CLAY MCCOY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Elliott Michael Harding, Esq. HARDING COUNSEL PLLC 1260 Clifden Greene Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 962-8465 Defendants-Appellants BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al. are represented by: Jessica D. Aber, Esq. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Esq. Jonathan Tyler Lucier, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 919 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 819-5400 (804) 819-5506 - and - Brian Boynton, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 - and - Michael Patrick Clendenen, Esq. Lesley Farby, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L. Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 532-5747 - and - Daniel M. Riess, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 353-3098 CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Concussion Class Action Discontinued ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was commenced in Ontario by Mr. Banks against the Canadian Football League ("CFL"), its teams, former commissioner and others on behalf of former CFL players who suffered concussion-related injuries while playing in the league ("Former Players"). Former CFL player Arland Bruce also filed a similar concussion-related lawsuit as an individual (not as a class action). After a hearing and appeals all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Bruce's legal claims were directed to proceed by way of labour arbitration rather than through the courts. The class action lawsuit has now been discontinued (withdrawn) against all of the defendants. This is because it is likely that claims relating to Former Players' concussions are required to be resolved through labour arbitration rather than in the courts. Arbitration is a private contractual dispute resolution process that occurs before a decision maker known as an arbitrator. In this case, the arbitration process is driven by the Collective Bargaining Agreements ("CBA's") established between the CFL Player's Association ("CFLPA") and the CFL defendants over time. YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR CONCUSSION RELATED INJURY THROUGH AN ARBITRATION PROCESS The CFL Defendants (the league, its teams and former commissioner Mark Cohon) have agreed to a labour arbitration process whereby Former Players alleging a concussion related injury as of October 31, 2023 can seek to file a claim (known as a "Grievance" within the arbitration process). The arbitration process will be governed by the applicable CBA as follows: * For claims that arise pre- May 2019 the 2014-2019 CBA will apply; and * For claims that arise after May 2019, the subsequent CBA will apply. The arbitration process provides, among other things, that: * Former Players who were suffering from, or could reasonably be expected to have known that they were suffering from, a concussion-related injury as of October 31, 2023 may initiate a Grievance under the terms of the applicable CBA; * The scope of the claims and relief available to Former Players under the 2014-2019 CBA incorporates a tort law structure. That structure includes the capacity for Grievances concerning a duty of care, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and equitable treatment by the CFL and the teams toward Former Players in relation to player safety, well-being and treatment of concussion-related injuries; * Arbitration imposes no monetary limits to compensation that a Former Player can seek pursuant to the CBAs; * For the period from January 1, 2017 to April 30, 2024 the CFL will not raise any timeliness argument and it agrees that no arbitrator has jurisdiction to consider any delay for that time period. The CBAs otherwise include a timeliness requirement that a Grievance must be commenced within one year of the time in which the basis for the claim was reasonably discoverable by the Former Player; * Otherwise, the arbitrator shall determine all issues of timeliness and discoverability concerning a Grievance made by a Former Player. The claims of Former Players are subject to discoverability rules under the CBAs and at law, and in respect of the Former Player's ability to discover the existence of their claim including factors concerning their personal mental or physical competence. Former Players may also make arguments concerning tolling rights for the timeliness of their claims, if applicable, under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. There is no guarantee of success for any party in any legal proceeding including within an arbitration. Former Players and the CFL defendants retain all claims and defences that are available to them under the CBAs or at law. To the knowledge of Mr. Banks' counsel and the CFL defendants, certain notices of arbitration for concussion related claims have been filed by Wishart Brain & Spine Law (contact details below) and by the CFLPA. Specifically: 1. A group grievance was filed by the CFLPA dated March 18, 2018, and is being scheduled for arbitration (the "Group Grievance"). The Group Grievance was filed separately and independently from the class action. 2. The CFLPA may represent any current or former player within the Group Grievance should any such player wish to be represented by the CFLPA. 3. Please contact the CFLPA at admin@cflpa.com to be added to emails and other communications from the CFLPA with updates about the Group Grievance and arbitration. 4. The CFLPA will also receive and consider requests for it to file individual grievances on behalf of individual members where it may be appropriate. Requests for the CFLPA to file individual grievances can be submitted by email to admin@cflpa.com. THE ARBITRATION DEADLINE Former Players known to have suffered a concussion-related injury caused while playing in the CFL prior to October 31, 2023 and wishing to file a Grievance to participate in the arbitration process must file their Grievance(s) by April 30, 2024, which is 6 months from October 31, 2023. Former Players looking to file a Grievance may hire a lawyer of their choice to assist them or contact the CFLPA as indicated above. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO NOT FILE A GRIEVANCE? If you know you suffered a concussion-related injury while playing in the CFL and do not file a Grievance by April 30, 2024, you will not be entitled to file a claim at a later date. MORE INFORMATION For more information about the discontinued class action please visit www.foremancompany.com/CFL or contact: Foreman & Company: Toll free at 1-855-814-4575 ext. 107 or e-mail at classactions@foremancompany.com; or Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP: Toll free at 1-800-689-2322 or e-mail at info@cfmlawyers.ca. For assistance in filing a Grievance, please contact your own lawyer or the CFLPA. Robyn Wishart of Wishart Brian & Spine Law has also initiated Grievances for Former Players. Ms. Wishart can be reached at: Toll free at 1-855-947-4278 or e-mail at rlw@wishlaw.ca. [GN] CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Ontiveros Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Efren Cabanillas Ontiveros, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SALVADOR MACIAS, an individual; an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2304728 was removed from entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02216. The Plaintiff bases his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the Labor Code by: failing to pay Plaintiff overtime wages for time worked; failing to pay Plaintiff minimum wages for time worked; failing to provide Plaintiff with meal periods in accordance with California law; failing to provide Plaintiff with rest periods in accordance with California law; failing to timely pay Plaintiff wages owed at separation; failing to provide Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements; failing to timely pay Plaintiff during his employment tenure; violation of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Brandon L. sSpurlock, Esq. DUANE MORRIS 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: +1 312 499 6700 Fax: +1 312 499 6701 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com BLSpurlock@duanemorris.com - and - Nick Baltaxe, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7400 Fax: +1 213 689 7401 Email: nbaltaxe@duanemorris.com CARAT & CO: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carat & Co., Inc. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Carat & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08002 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carat & Co. -- https://www.caratco.com/ -- is the premier retailer of Fine Watches and Jewelry in Flushing, Queens, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CARESOURCE: Embert Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rachel Embert, on behalf of herself, her minor child, KG, and all others similarly situated v. CARESOURCE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00270 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12570-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. CareSource -- https://www.caresource.com/ -- offers a lifetime of health coverage to over 2.3 million members through plan offerings including Marketplace, Medicare products and Medicaid.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Ste. 2720 Cincinnatti, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 381-2224 Fax: (615) 994-8625 Email: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - John Givens Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Phone: (800) 551-8649 Fax: (501) 286-4659 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Erin Rhinehart, Esq. FARUKI 110 North Main Street, Suite 1600 Dayton, OH 45402 Phone: (937) 227-3714 Email: erhinehart@ficlaw.com - and - Jason W. Palmer, Esq. Raika Nicole Casey, Esq. FARUKI PLL 201 E. Fifth St., Ste 1420 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 632-0318 Email: jpalmer@ficlaw.com rcasey@ficlaw.com CARESOURCE: Eslinger Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Patsie Eslinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARESOURCE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00271 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12571 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. CareSource -- https://www.caresource.com/ -- offers a lifetime of health coverage to over 2.3 million members through plan offerings including Marketplace, Medicare products and Medicaid.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Erin Rhinehart, Esq. FARUKI 110 North Main Street, Suite 1600 Dayton, OH 45402 Phone: (937) 227-3714 Email: erhinehart@ficlaw.com - and - Jason W. Palmer, Esq. Raika Nicole Casey, Esq. FARUKI PLL 201 E. Fifth St., Ste 1420 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 632-0318 Email: jpalmer@ficlaw.com rcasey@ficlaw.com CARESOURCE: Higham Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Todd Higham, on behalf of minor child A. H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARESOURCE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00276 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12573-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. CareSource -- https://www.caresource.com/ -- offers a lifetime of health coverage to over 2.3 million members through plan offerings including Marketplace, Medicare products and Medicaid.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse Alexander Shore, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PLLC 300 Madison Avenue, Suite 200 Covington, KY 41011 Phone: (859) 899-8786 Fax: (859) 899-8807 Email: jshore@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Flr. Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 318-5169 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Erin Rhinehart, Esq. FARUKI 110 North Main Street, Suite 1600 Dayton, OH 45402 Phone: (937) 227-3714 Email: erhinehart@ficlaw.com - and - Jason W. Palmer, Esq. Raika Nicole Casey, Esq. FARUKI PLL 201 E. Fifth St., Ste 1420 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 632-0318 Email: jpalmer@ficlaw.com rcasey@ficlaw.com CARESOURCE: Willis Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Channon Willis, individually as next friend of C.M., a minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARESOURCE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00264 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12568-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. CareSource -- https://www.caresource.com/ -- offers a lifetime of health coverage to over 2.3 million members through plan offerings including Marketplace, Medicare products and Medicaid.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: (513) 665-0204 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Erin Rhinehart, Esq. FARUKI 110 North Main Street, Suite 1600 Dayton, OH 45402 Phone: (937) 227-3714 Email: erhinehart@ficlaw.com - and - Jason W. Palmer, Esq. Raika Nicole Casey, Esq. FARUKI PLL 201 E. Fifth St., Ste 1420 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 632-0318 Email: jpalmer@ficlaw.com rcasey@ficlaw.com CAROLMCCRAE LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAROLMCCRAE, LLC. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAROLMCCRAE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08037 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carolmccrae LLC is a liquor license holder in Brooklyn.[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 CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS: Ceja Suit Removed to C.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Ceja, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES I through 25, Inclusive, Case No. CVRI2305029 was removed from entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02223. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action: Failure to Pay minimum Wages; Failure to Pay overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages Upon Termination and; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Catherine L. Brackett, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAXMIS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com catherine.brackett@ogletree.com CHELSEA GARDEN: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Garden Center East, Inc. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chelsea Garden Center East, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08043-RPK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chelsea Garden Center East, Inc. -- https://chelseagardencenter.com/ -- offers small to large indoor houseplants online.[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 CIRCLE OF DRINK: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle of Drink, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Circle of Drink, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09471 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Circle of Drink -- https://circleofdrink.com/ -- provide organic yerba mate tea.[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 CLEAN HARBORS: Sanctis Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dino De Sanctis, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., A CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. C23-01916 was removed from entitled action from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05570. The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Unfair Competition in Violation of Business & Professions Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Labor and the Applicable Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of Labor Code; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M Chemers, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Pickett Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF CLEVELAND filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated September 30, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled ALBERT PICKETT, JR., KEYONNA JOHNSON, JAROME MONTGOMERY, ODESSA PARKS, and TINIYA SHEPHERD f/k/a TINIYA HALL), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Case No. 1:19-cv-02911-SO, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. On December 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs, who are all African-American current or former customers of Cleveland Water, filed a class action suit against the Defendant due to a pattern of not providing procedural safeguards to customers before terminating their water service. The Plaintiffs allege that customers of Defendant are frequently given extremely high water bills even after the customers confirm that there are no leaks anywhere on their properties. Some customers were even assessed high water bills after Cleveland Water had already shut-off their water service. The Plaintiffs further allege that these high water bills are erroneous and are caused by Defendant's water meters incorrectly recording water usage. The Plaintiffs further assert that Defendant never gives customers who believe that their meters are inaccurately recording water usage an opportunity to contest their bills. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an order certifying the following three classes: -- the Water Lien Class "All Black homeowners or residents in Cuyahoga County who have been obligated, within two years of the filing of the Complaint, to pay a debt assessed against their real property, wherein the debt arises from monies originally owed to Cleveland Water;" -- the Shutoff Class "All persons who, within two years of the filing of the Complaint, have had their water service disconnected by Cleveland Water and did not receive advance written notice of the shutoff or their right to request a hearing to dispute the impending shutoff;" and -- the Overbilling Class "All persons who, within two years of the filing of the Complaint, have been overbilled for water services by Cleveland Water and did not receive an opportunity to contest their bill through a hearing." On September 30, 2023, Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and certifying Plaintiffs' Water Lien Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2), (b)(3), and its Shutoff and Overbilling Classes pursuant to (b)(3). The Court further appointed current counsel for Plaintiffs as class counsel. The appellate case is captioned as In re: City of Cleveland, OH, Case No. 23-0309, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 13, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner CITY OF CLEVELAND, OH is represented by: Michael James Ruttinger, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-4456 Plaintiffs-Respondents ALBERT PICKETT, JR., KEYONNA JOHNSON, JAROME MONTGOMERY, ODESSA PARKS, and TINIYA SHEPHERD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, fka Tiniya Hall, are represented by: Avery S. Friedman, Esq. FRIEDMAN & ASSOCIATES 850 Euclid Avenue Suite 701 City Club Building Cleveland, OH 44114-3358 Telephone: (216) 621-9282 - and - Jennifer Holmes, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC 700 14th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20011 Telephone: (202) 682-1300 - and - Neil K. Roman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING 850 Tenth Street, N.W., Unit 303 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 - and - Alexandra Sloane Thompson, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 40 Rector Street, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 965-2200 COMPLETE NEUROLOGICAL: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Complete Neurological Care, P.C. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Complete Neurological Care, P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-08046 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Complete Neurological Care -- https://www.completeneurologicalcare.com/ -- specializes in diagnosing and treating many neurological conditions, including dementia.[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 CONTINENTAL WINE: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Wine & Spirits, LLC. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Continental Wine & Spirits, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08004 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Continental Wine & Spirits, LLC -- https://www.continentalspiritsandwines.com/ -- carry a very wide variety of Kosher and non-kosher wines and spirits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Rapp Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 6th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff WALTER JOSEPH RAPP filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated September 29, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled WALTER JOSEPH RAPP, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION D/B/A COSTCO WHOLESALE, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00645-CHB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this suit that was filed on December 7, 2022, arising from the Defendant's alleged violation of Kentucky law for the assessment of sales tax on exempt food items; for unfair, false, misleading, and/or deceptive trade practices; for breach of fiduciary duty to customers; and for conversion of customers' funds in Kentucky. On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff visited Costco in Louisville, Kentucky and purchased Cretor's popcorn mix. He asserts that Costco wrongly collected sales tax on Cretor's mix that he purchased because it is a food item, which is totally exempt from sales tax. The sales tax collected on Cretor's mix alone was $1.03, or 6% of the pre-discounted price of $17.22. The complaint alleges that Costco induced customers (including Mr. Rapp) to believe that it was deducting the proper amount of sales tax even though it had knowledge that the amount collected exceeded the amount imposed by Kentucky law. On February 17, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which the Court granted on September 29 through an Order entered by Judge David J. Hale. This matter was DISMISSED without prejudice and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. The appellate case is captioned as Walter Rapp v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 23-5900, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 13, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellant brief is due on November 22, 2023 and Appellee brief is due on December 22, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WALTER JOSEPH RAPP, On behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Thomas Scott Abell, Esq. ABELL ROSE 108 S. Madison Avenue Louisville, KY 40243-1473 Telephone: (502) 450-5611 Defendant-Appellee COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, dba Costco Wholesale, is represented by: Miles Harrison, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 400 W. Market Street, 32nd Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 779-8121 COSTCO: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Frozen Berries ----------------------------------------------------------- Taiwan News Formosa TV reports that the Consumers' Foundation has filed a class-action lawsuit against Costco for selling contaminated frozen berries. The foundation says Costco failed to carry out its duty to ensure product safety, adding that it did not provide sufficient compensation to consumers earlier this year. In total, the foundation is asking Costco to pay NT$11.07 million to affected consumers. Earlier this year, the hepatitis A virus was found in batches of Costco's frozen mixed berries and blueberries. The Consumers' Foundation has filed a class-action suit against Costco, demanding NT$20,000 in compensation for each affected consumer. It's also seeking punitive damages of three times the purchase price, up from two. Chen Ya-ping Consumers' Foundation It's such a large company, but its inspection mechanisms are lacking. The compensation it offered consumers was just a refund plus an amount equivalent to the purchase price. But it did not offer any compensation for matters like psychological damages. The suit was filed on behalf of 135 consumers. It asks Costco to pay approximately NT$11.07 million. [GN] COUTURE HOUSE RENTALS: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Couture House Rentals, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Robertson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Couture House Rentals, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09428 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Couture Properties, LLC -- https://www.shopcouturehouse.com/ -- is a store featuring fancy gowns & tuxedos to rent or purchase, plus alterations & bespoke dresses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com DOCGO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Oct. 30 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired DocGo, Inc. ("DocGo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DCGO) securities between November 8, 2022 and September 17, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the Company's investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) DocGo's executive hiring processes were inadequate to fully review and vet the professional and academic backgrounds of job candidates; (ii) this increased the likelihood of disruptive executive turnover; (iii) contrary to DocGo's representations to investors, DocGo had overstated the efficacy of its mobile health and medical transportation services; and (iv) all of the above, once revealed, was likely to subject DocGo to significant reputational and/or regulatory scrutiny that would negatively impact DocGo's financial position and/or prospects. On July 30, 2023, The New York Times, published an article reporting that "[l]ocal authorities have expressed frustration at the lack of coordination between DocGo and agencies that could provide services to the migrants; local security guards hired by DocGo have repeatedly threatened the migrants; and finding steady work has been nearly impossible." Following the publication of The New York Times article, the price of DocGo stock fell more than 6%. Then, on September 6, 2023, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander announced that his office was declining to approve the Relocation Contract. According to the Complaint, New York City Mayor Eric Adams had the authority to proceed with the Relocation Contract over Comptroller Lander's objections and ultimately did so. On this news, the price of DocGo stock fell more than 7%. Further, on September 14, 2023, the Albany Times Union published an article reporting that former DocGo CEO, defendant Anthony Capone, had falsified portions of his professional biography regarding his educational history. According to the Complaint, on the following day, September 15, 2023, DocGo disclosed Capone's resignation as CEO. On this news, the price of DocGo stock fell nearly 12%. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of DocGo should contact the Firm prior to the December 26, 2023 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] DOCGO INC: Faces Investor Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------- Paige Minemyer, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that the hits keep coming for embattled health company DocGo. An investor filed a proposed class-action lawsuit Oct. 27 against the company and five current and former members of its top brass, aiming to recover losses they suffered after negative news coverage in September led DocGo's stock price to plummet. In September, CEO Anthony Capone resigned amid growing scrutiny from officials in New York City as well as the state over its migrant care contract with the city. Capone also faced allegations that he falsely represented his educational background. "Throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects," according to the lawsuit. A DocGo spokesperson said in a statement that the company is planning to disprove the lawsuit's claims in court. "We reject the accusations of the recently filed securities lawsuit, which follows a pattern of litigation filed reflexively after stock-price declines," the spokesperson said. "We look forward to refuting the claims in court. In the meantime, we remain focused on our mission of delivering high quality, highly accessible care to all." DocGo provides mobile health and transportation to providers and payers across the country and in the U.K. The suit accuses DocGo of overstating the effectiveness of its services and failing to fully vet candidates for top jobs. "DocGo's executive hiring processes were inadequate to fully review and vet the professional and academic backgrounds of job candidates," according to the suit. The lawsuit includes just one named investor at present, who purchased 500 DocGo shares between November 2022 and March 2023. It argues, though that "there are hundreds or thousands of members in the proposed class." [GN] DOMINO'S PIZZA: Files Writ of Certiorari in Carmona Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision in the lawsuit entitled Edmond Carmona, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-55009, entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff Edmond Carmona and two other drivers filed this putative class action against Domino's Pizza in October 2020, alleging violations of California labor law. The three lead plaintiffs each had agreements with Domino's Pizza providing that any claim, dispute, and/or controversy between the parties would be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Domino's Pizza filed a motion to compel arbitration on November 9, 2020. The district court denied the motion, finding the Plaintiffs exempt from the FAA under 9 U.S.C. Section 1 notwithstanding their contracts with Domino's because they are transportation workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. On January 7, 2022, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The appellate case is captioned Domino's Pizza, LLC, Petitioner vs. Edmond Carmona, et al., Case No. 23-427, in the Supreme Court of United States, filed on October 23, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents EDMOND CARMONA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com Defendant-Petitioner DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC is represented by: Courtney Gilligan Saleski, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 5000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-2431 E-mail: courtney.saleski@dlapiper.com - and - Norman M. Leon, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (313) 368-4000 E-mail: norman.leon@us.dlapiper.com DOUBLE D. RANCHWEAR: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Double D. Ranchwear, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Robertson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Double D. Ranchwear, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09430 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Double D. Ranch -- https://doubledranch.com/ -- the premiere lifestyle brand inspired by the West, designs and manufactures apparel and accessory collections consisting of jackets, tops, dresses, skirts, boots, hats and jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com DYNATA LLC: Shiftsmart Appeals Rulings in Davis Suit to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHIFTSMART, INC. is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Yolanda Davis, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dynata, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01062-SVN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On Nov. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Nov. 30, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. On May 1, 2023, Shiftsmart, Inc. filed motion to stay and to compel arbitration. On Aug. 16, 2023, Shiftsmart filed a motion to strike. On Sept. 25, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Shiftsmart's motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration; granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action; denied Dynata's motion to dismiss; and denied as moot Shiftsmart's motion to strike. The Court also denied Dynata's request to join Shiftsmart's motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Specifically, Shiftsmart's motion was denied with respect to the Plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration provisions in place before October 21, 2022, and was granted with respect to the Plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration provisions introduced thereafter. All litigation with respect to named Plaintiffs Teneshia Bankston and Tiffany Taylor and opt-in Plaintiffs Sasha Watson, Catera Duncan, Toya Shaunnell Kenan, Alisa Charles, was stayed. The Court held that Named Plaintiff Yolanda Davis and opt-in Plaintiffs Margaret Samantha Abernathy, Keshun Durden, Brittni Davis, and Tiara Jones may proceed with their claims in this action. The Court granted and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The Court found that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for conditional certification and ordered Dynata to identify all potential members of the collective, as limited by this ruling. The Court ordered the parties to submit a revised joint notice of collective action, in conformance with this ruling, by October 5, 2023. The Court denied Dynata's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. Finally, the Court denied as moot Shiftsmart's motion to strike Plaintiff's notice of additional authority. The appellate case is captioned Davis v. Dynata, LLC, Case No. 23-7405, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 18, 2023. [BN] Defendant-Appellant SHIFTSMART, INC. is represented by: Thomas C. Blatchley, Esq. GORDON & REES, LLP 95 Glastonbury Boulevard Glastonbury, CT 06033 Plaintiffs-Appellees YOLANDA DAVIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 EMS MANAGEMENT: Robinson Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edith Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMS Management & Consultants, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-05073 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Oct. 27, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00921 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. EMS|MC -- https://emsmc.com/ -- is a third-party billing agency for EMS Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com The Defendant is represented by: Lindsey W. Cooper, Jr., Esq. Dustin J. Pitts, Esq. Nicholas Paul Tierney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF L.W. COOPER JR. 36 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 375-6622 Fax: (843) 375-6623 Email: lwc@lwcooper.com djp@lwcooper.com nick@lwcooper.com - and - Margarete L. Boyce, Esq. DYSART WILLIS HOUCHIN & HUBBARD, PLLC 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Phone: (919) 747-8380 Fax: (919) 882-1222 Email: linsay@dysartwillis.com FRITO-LAY: Hinton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Steward Hinton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRITO-LAY, Inc., Case No. 2023-CH-08301 was removed from entitled action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department – Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-15395. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, based on the alleged collection, capture, or possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information at a Frito-Lay facility in Carol Stream, Illinois.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Erik J. Ives, Esq. FOX, SWIBEL, LEVIN & CARROLL, LLP 200 West Madison Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 224-1200 Facsimile: (312) 224-1202 Email: eives@fslc.com - and - Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq. Robert Niles-Weed, Esq. Claire L. Chapla, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 2001 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 682-7000 Email: drew.tulumello@weil.com robert.niles-weed@weil.com claire.chapla@weil.com FUBOTV INC: Perez Alleges Disclosure of Personal Info to Facebook ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER PEREZ and DENISE BRINKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FUBOTV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61961 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2023) is a class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act arising from Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to Meta Platforms, Inc. or Facebook, information which identifies Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided to Defendant by Facebook. That pixel tracked Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' video viewing history while on Defendant's website and reported the viewing history to Facebook along with Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' unique Facebook Identification numbers. The Defendant knowingly violated the VPPA by embedding the Meta Pixel within its website and sharing Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' video viewing history, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiffs, who became digital subscribers by registering for an account with Defendant, seek actual damages but not less than liquidated damages in an amount of $2,500 for each and every violation of the VPPA committed by Defendant, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and any other available preliminary or equitable relief deemed appropriate by the Court. FuboTV, Inc. operates a website, www.fubo.tv, that offers both prerecorded and live-stream videos to individuals who subscribe to its services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW. P.A. 515 E las Olas Blvd. Ste 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bailey Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Keith Bailey, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Genworth Financial Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00627 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 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-12500-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Genworth Financial -- https://www.genworth.com/ -- provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Jermone Funk, Esq. DURRETTE ARKEMA GERSON & GILL PC 1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 775-6900 Email: kfunk@dagglaw.com - and - Wyatt B. Durrette , Jr. DURRETTEBRADSHAW PLC 600 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 775-6809 Fax: (804) 775-6911 Email: wdurrette@durrettebradshaw.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Kennedy Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darlene Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Financial Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00622 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 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-12501-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Genworth Financial -- https://www.genworth.com/ -- provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq. DIMUROGINSBERG, P.C. 1001 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 510 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 684-4333 Fax: (703) 548-3181 Email: bdimuro@dimuro.com HEWLETT ASSOCIATES: Quinatoa Appeals Ruling in Suit --------------------------------------------------- STELLA QUINATOA, et al. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in her lawsuit styled STELLA QUINATOA and ANA CABRERA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. HEWLETT ASSOCIATES, LP, Defendant, Case No. 151132/2018, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The appellate case is captioned Stella Quinatoa and Ana Cabrera, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs. Hewlett Associates, LP, Case No. 23-05255, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on October 23, 2023. Plaintiffs Stella Quinatoa and Ana Cabrera have sued on behalf of themselves and the other residents of the Trafalgar Building in Flushing, Queens. Defendant Hewlett Associates is the owner and landlord of Trafalgar. The complaint asserts that the Defendant violated the New York Rent Stabilization Laws and Administrative Code Section 26-509. The Defendant received J-51 benefits starting in 2008. Although this legally subjected all apartments in the building to rent regulation, the Defendant did not register "nearly a hundred units at the Trafalgar Apartments." The complaint further asserts that Defendant and its employees "affirmatively deceived tenants at the Trafalgar Apartments concerning the building's rent-regulated status," telling the tenants "that the Trafalgar Apartments were deregulated, an assertion they knew to be false." As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant HEWLETT ASSOCIATES, LP, on October 5, 2021, sought a review of the Court's Decision and Order dated March 24, 2021, denying its motion to dismiss the proposed class action complaint.[BN] Defendant-Respondent HEWLETT ASSOCIATES, LP is represented by: Jeffrey R. Metz, Esq. ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY, P.C. 1 Battery Park Plaza, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 825-0365 IANTHUS CAPITAL: To Settle Consolidated 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 in an ongoing consolidated action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has agreed to settle their dispute. On May 19, 2020, Hi-Med LLC, an equity holder and one of the unsecured lenders who held an unsecured debenture in the principal amount of $5.0 million prior to the closing of a recapitalization transaction, filed a complaint with said court against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers and other defendants. Hi-Med sought damages of an unspecified amount and the full principal amount of the unsecured debenture against the company, for, among other things, alleged breaches of provisions of the unsecured debentures and the related debenture purchase agreement as well as alleged violations of Federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and common law fraud relating to 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 a default thereof. On July 9, 2020, the court issued an order consolidating the class action matter with the shareholder class action referenced below. On July 23, 2020, Hi-Med and the defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, Hi-Med filed an amended complaint. On October 14, 2020, the court issued a stipulation and scheduling and coordination order, which required that the defendants answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Hi-Med amended complaint no later than November 20, 2020. On November 20, 2020, the company and certain of its current officers and directors filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 8, 2021, Hi-Med filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The company and certain of its current officers and directors' replies were filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the court granted the company's and certain of its officers and directors' Motion to Dismiss the complaint. The court indicated that Hi-Med may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On September 30, 2021, Hi-Med filed a motion for leave to amend the amended complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order Regarding Hi-Med's Motion for Leave to File a second amended complaint or stipulation. On November 3, 2021, the court so-ordered the stipulation and the second amended complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the company and its current named officers and directors filed a Motion to Dismiss Hi-Med's second amended complaint. Hi-Med's opposition to the company's and its current named officers and directors' Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The company and its current named officers and directors' reply to Hi-Med’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 Hi-Med's second amended complaint in an opinion. On October 12, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed scheduling order, in which certain defendants indicated that they may be filing a motion seeking clarification of certain aspects of the court's opinion. The parties proposed that the company's answer would be due on November 21, 2022 and that the parties would submit a proposed discovery plan by December 12, 2022. The Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order was ordered by the court on October 19, 2022. Defendants' motions seeking clarification were filed on October 24, 2022 and are currently pending before the court. On January 17, 2023, the parties submitted the matter, together with the Class Action Lawsuit referenced below, to mediation. On January 31, 2023, the parties advised the court that the defendants and Hi-Med remain in ongoing settlement discussions. Accordingly, the parties requested that the court suspend all further deadlines and proceedings in the Hi-Med action until February 21, 2023, to allow for continued settlement discussions between the parties, which the court granted on February 7, 2023. On February 16, 2023, the parties advised the court that the parties remained in ongoing settlement discussions and requested that the court extend the parties' deadlines further until March 21, 2023, which it granted on February 21, 2023. On March 16, 2023, the parties requested another extension of the parties' deadlines until April 11, 2023 to continue settlement discussions, which the SDNY granted on March 17, 2023. On April 6, 2023, the parties again advised the court that settlement discussions remained ongoing and requested another extension of the applicable deadlines until May 2, 2023, which the SDNY granted. On April 28, 2023, another extension of the deadlines until May 16, 2023 was requested due to ongoing settlement discussions, which the court granted. The parties have reached a settlement in principle and are in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement, which would fully resolve all of Hi-Med's claims. While the parties finalize the settlement agreement, all deadlines in the matter have been extended until August 21, 2023. On June 29, 2020, Hi-Med filed a claim in the court, which mirrors the Hi-Med Complaint, but the Company has not been served. 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. JWB PROPERTY: Settles Former Tenants' Suit Over Improper Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Maxwell, writing for News4Jax, reports that a Jacksonville woman went up against a major local landlord in court, and in the process, helped secure a class action settlement agreement worth more than half a million dollars, her attorneys said. Arlie Conner and her attorneys filed a class action lawsuit against local property management company JWB in 2021, alleging the company charged renters improper fees. JWB manages more than 5,000 rental properties in Northeast Florida. Most of the initial allegations made in the class action suit were dropped, but the one that stuck could mean savings for hundreds of local families. Although a settlement has been worked out, JWB denies any wrongdoing. By the time Arlie Conner moved out of a JWB-managed rental property in 2021, she said she'd had enough of her landlords. Conner told News4JAX the company originally told her she could stay in the home through the month of June, as she was preparing to move into the house she'd bought, but about midway through the month, she said, they locked her out, demanded a full month's rent, plus about $5,500 in fees, coming to a total of more than $7,000. She said she left the place in good shape. "I felt violated," she said. "I felt powerless. I felt sad . . . I was in an okay, position financially, but it made me think about people that you're doing this to that are not." She said she did not pay the fees, instead turning to Jacksonville Beach consumer attorneys Max Story and Austin Griffin. "We take on a lot of these tenant cases because of the affordable housing crisis and the skyrocketing rents in Jacksonville and Florida all over," Story said. In November of 2021, they filed a class action suit making several allegations against JWB regarding tenant fees. "I wanted him to go in, both barrels loaded guns a-blazing, to show them that they can't just pick on people because they feel like they have them in a spot between a rock and a hard place," she said. Close to two years later, just one of the allegations in the class action case has stuck: the plaintiffs accused JWB of charging tenants facing eviction a fee of $500 to cover what JWB paid to file eviction papers in court, when it actually costs $198 to file those papers. "Their defense was, they hired a certain eviction law firm that charged $500 per case...that included attorneys fees, and everything else," Griffin said. The distinction wasn't clear in the line item Conner said she received from JWB. JWB agreed to a settlement in recent weeks, telling News4JAX on Oct. 31: "JWB was involved in a lawsuit stemming from the specific wording from an intent to claim form regarding cost of court filings for several former tenants. At all times, JWB has striven to act in accordance with state and federal law governing residential leases. While JWB denies any wrongdoing, we believe the settlement agreement is in the best interest [of] our team and former residents." The plaintiffs told News4JAX the settlement agreement provides $592,000 in debt forgiveness for about 380 people who owe JWB for these and other fees. They expect that to happen automatically after a hearing about the settlement in December. "These are going to be like beautiful Christmas gifts for people, because I'm pretty sure there are families out there that are having trouble finding a decent place to live because they either have it on their credit or it's hindering them in some form," Conner said. Conner also won a $10,000 settlement, including for collection complaints related to her case, Griffin said. JWB has not admitted to any wrongdoing in the class action complaint. In the settlement agreement, they say they vigorously deny all of the claims and allegations raised in the class action lawsuit. [GN] MALIVER PTY: Fraud Victims File Class Action Against Auditors ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip King, writing for Accounting Times, reports that Melbourne-based lawyer Mackay Chapman has filed a class action on behalf of 24 victims of disappeared fraudster Melissa Caddick against the auditors engaged to conduct annual audits of their SMSFs. The class action alleged that auditors engaged to review the annual financial reports for the SMSFs failed to identify fraudulent documents prepared by Ms Caddick and failed to confirm that the assets purportedly held by the SMSFs in fact existed. Ms Caddick, an unlicensed financial adviser from Sydney, defrauded approximately $23 million from her clients over an eight-year period before disappearing on 12 November 2020, the day after an ASIC raid on her home. Operating through her company Maliver, established in 2012, Ms Caddick claimed to be a legitimate financial adviser. Investors handed over funds in the belief that they were being used to buy ASX-listed equities. But the investments never existed and the money from investors was instead diverted for Ms Caddick and Maliver's own use. Federal Court later determined that these actions constituted a Ponzi scheme conducted by Ms Caddick and Maliver. It found that the documents purporting to record the investors' investments and how they were performing were fraudulent creations by Ms Caddick. When an investor sought to withdraw money, Ms Caddick drew on the investment pool of funds. Mackay Chapman said most victims invested with Ms Caddick and Maliver through their SMSFs, which were required to be audited annually. From 2012–20, at least five auditors were engaged to conduct the mandatory annual audit of the SMSFs and all provided audit reports that, in effect, gave the SMSFs a clean bill of health. All of the audit reports found that the SMSF financial reports were "free from material misstatement" and "presented fairly in all material respects the financial position of the SMSF". In the Sydney Federal Court filing, the victims claimed that the auditors failed to identify fraudulent documents prepared by Ms Caddick or to confirm that the assets said to be held by the SMSFs in fact existed. "We now know that the financial reports reviewed by the auditors were supported by fraudulent documentation prepared by Ms Caddick and the assets said to be held by the SMSFs did not exist," Mackay Chapman said. The actions against the auditors included claims of: - Negligence. - Breach of contract. - Misleading or deceptive conduct and/or misleading or deceptive representations. - Other contraventions, including breaches of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the ASIC Act 2001 (Cth). [GN] MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Perrone Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perrone, et al., v. Family Dollar, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02383 (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 Perrone 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/49dgMUb at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3032: Class Action Settlement in Rogers Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rogers v. Family Dollar, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02159 (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 Rogers 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/3FJhQS0 at no extra charge.[CC] MIDJOURNEY INC: California Court Tosses Copyright Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Tessa Solomon, writing for ARTnews, reports that on Monday, a judge in California federal court dismissed several claims brought by a group of artists against the developers of AI text-to-image generator tools Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, lowering the stakes of the closely-watched copyright case. U.S. District Judge William Orrick has dismissed all of the allegations brought by Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz against Midjourney and DeviantArt, Reuters reports. However, the judge added that the artists could file an amended complaint against the two companies, on the basis that their system utilize Stability's Stable Diffusion text-to-image software. Orrick also dismissed the entirety of McKernan and Ortiz's copyright infringement claims, while Andersen was greenlit to continue pursuing her "core" claim that Stability's alleged use of her artworks to train its AI-image generator model is a copyright violation. "Even Stability recognizes that determination of the truth of these allegations -- whether copying in violation of the Copyright Act occurred in the context of training Stable Diffusion or occurs when Stable Diffusion is run -- cannot be resolved at this juncture," Orrick said in his ruling. The artists' attorneys Joseph Saveri and Matthew Butterick said in a statement that the amended complaint will be filed this month. In January, Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz, filed a complaint that accused Stability of using billions of images "scraped" from the internet, including theirs, in the dataset used to train Stability Diffusion to generate its own images. Because their work was used to train the models, the artists argue, the models are producing derivative works. Orrick, however, said Monday that he was "not convinced" that the images created by Stability Diffusion violated the artists' copyrights, and was skeptical of how much of an impact these three artist's works could have had on the models, insofar as they are likely to produce derivatives, given that these models were trained on billions of images. He added that the artists would have a difficult time in future courts proving copyright infringement without a side-by-side comparison of images with obvious visual similarities. Orrick also dismissed claims from the artists that the three companies violated their publicity rights, but gave them permission to refile. As previously reported by ARTnews, the defendants' lawyers pointed out various issues with the artists' arguments. Firstly, out of the three named plaintiffs -- Sarah Andersen, Karla Ortiz, and Kelly McKernan -- only Andersen had registered several works with the U.S. Copyright Office. That Ortiz and McKernan don't hold registered copyright is a major obstacle to claiming valid copyright infringement claims. [GN] MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Lattimore Sues Over Deceptive Financing Policies ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY LATTIMORE and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV25080 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for intentional misrepresentation, fraud/concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Laws, Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff is a resident of California and is a 100% disabled U.S. Veteran. In January 2022, Plaintiff decided to sell her home in Sacramento and move to Los Angeles. The Plaintiff's realtor referred her to Movement Mortgage to obtain financing for the purchase of a home for Plaintiff to reside in Los Angeles. The Plaintiff wanted to use Veteran Affairs financing and was told by Movement's Loan Officer that "VA financing would be a good option for you with selling your current home." The Plaintiff was also told that she had initial approval for financing through the VA for a $700,000 purchase price. According to the complaint, after Movement told her that VA financing was a good option and she was initially approved for $700,000, Plaintiff found a property located in West Hollywood, CA with a purchase price of $695,000. Knowing that the representation was not true, Movement Mortgage, purportedly acting as Plaintiff's lender and/or broker, told Plaintiff that the property was "not approved" for a VA loan and that Plaintiff needed to obtain a conventional loan in order to purchase the Property. The Plaintiff later learned that it was Movement's policy to tell all VA borrowers that a property was "not approved" for a VA loan, despite this statement being false. In reliance upon Movement's representation, Plaintiff proceeded with the purchase using Movement for the conventional loan, which necessitated, among other things, that Plaintiff's parents be, not only co-signers on Plaintiff's loan, but co-owners of the property with Plaintiff as well. In addition, Movement demanded that Plaintiff provide a myriad of information and documentation including but not limited to a letter detailing sensitive personal information regarding her time serving in the U.S. military, otherwise, Movement would not approve the conventional loan. The information demanded by Movement was private, emotionally sensitive and extremely intrusive, burdensome, and oppressive, which caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, says the suit. Movement Mortgage, LLC is a home loan and refinancing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah L. Raymond, Esq. RAYMOND LAW OFFICES APC 445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 300 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (858) 481-9559 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces New Lawsuit Over Agent Commissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Ori, writing for CoStar News, reports that the National Association of Realtors, as it vows to appeal a multibillion-dollar verdict over agent commissions in Missouri, was hit with a new, larger lawsuit that adds to its challenge of maintaining its members' longstanding practices for selling homes. A jury in a federal courtroom in Kansas City reached a nearly $1.8 billion verdict Tuesday against the NAR and two brokerages, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America, over the practice of home sellers paying commissions to buyer and seller brokers in a process that Missouri home sellers argued is anticompetitive and artificially drives up home costs. Pending appeals that HomeServices said it will pursue and Keller Williams indicated it's considering, those damages would be trebled, or effectively tripled, to almost $5.4 billion because of the antitrust nature of the case. That suit has been closely watched because of its potential to affect the national home market and the broader economy. Immediately after the verdict was reached in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, plaintiffs' attorney Michael Ketchmark filed a new lawsuit that he said could result in hundreds of billions of damages to cover what his clients view as artificially inflated commission payments. It is a national class-action suit covering home sellers anywhere in the country, significantly widening the case geographically while also naming several new brokerages as defendants. "What I would tell those defendants is, the day of accountability is here," Ketchmark told CoStar News. Ketchmark estimated that homeowners pay $50 billion more than necessary each year to sell homes, "and our goal is to make that stop," he said after the verdict was reached in Kansas City. New Legal Action Defendants named in the subsequent case, filed by a new group of home sellers, are the NAR, Compass, eXp World Holdings, Redfin, Weichert Realtors, United Real Estate, Howard Hanna Real Estate and Douglas Elliman, Ketchmark told CoStar News. For the NAR, it complicates what already is expected to be a yearslong effort to appeal the initial verdict and defend itself in upcoming cases, including one expected to go to trial next year in another federal courtroom. Industry professionals had previously predicted the NAR could face more exposure if it doesn't settle ongoing lawsuits or reach a settlement. A recent report by Keefer, Bruyette & Woods research analysts heading into the Missouri trial estimated that an expansion of lawsuits throughout the country could up the potential damages against the NAR and other defendants to more than $400 billion. The NAR and HomeServices said they plan to appeal Tuesday's verdict and Keller Williams is considering it. They also are preparing for a case, Moehrl v. NAR, that's expected to reach a federal court in Chicago next year, with potential damages of about $41 billion. Two other defendants, Anywhere Real Estate and RE/MAX, previously reached settlement agreements in the cases for more than $138 million combined. Home sellers in the cases argued that practices by the NAR and its members are anticompetitive because they require all homes to be listed on member-controlled multiple listing services, with broker commissions disclosed ahead of a home going on the market for sale, with few realistic options available for sellers to reduce commission payments below the approximately 6% typically split between buyer and seller brokers. Weighing Options "It's been a long-running effort to have sellers pay buyer brokers, and that's wrong," Ketchmark said. "The jury agreed." Damages chosen by the jury in the Missouri case are monetary and do not require changes in business practices, Ketchmark said, but he said he planned to seek injunctive relief to change business practices of the NAR and major brokerages. The NAR vowed in a statement to CoStar News to appeal soon after the verdict was announced. Later, the Chicago-based organization commented on the new class-action lawsuit: "We are currently reviewing the new filing, and it appears to be a copycat lawsuit. We continue to assert that the practice of listing brokers making offers of compensation to buyer brokers is best for consumers. It gives the greatest number of buyers a chance to afford a home and professional representation, while also giving sellers access to the greatest number of buyers." Compass, Howard Hanna and Douglas Elliman declined to comment on the lawsuit to CoStar News. The other defendants did not immediately respond to requests to comment on the newly filed lawsuit, which was previously reported by Inman. "While we are still studying the formal complaint, we have been closely observing the ongoing antitrust litigation against our competitors in recent years," eXp Realty said in a statement to CoStar News. "We are committed to upholding fair and transparent practices compliant with law and we already have mechanisms and a plan in place that enables buyers and sellers to negotiate commissions. Our agile business model allows us to make adjustments seamlessly and effectively, no matter the jurisdiction." In a blog post that followed Tuesday's developments, Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman said, "Traditional brokers will undoubtedly now train their agents to welcome conversations about fees, just as Redfin has been doing for years, especially when advising a seller on what fee to offer to buyers' agents. Rather than saying that a fee for the buyers' agent of 2% or 3% is customary or recommended, agents will say that a buyers' agent fee, if one is offered at all, is entirely up to the seller. This is as it should be." [GN] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Liable to Pay $1.78 Billion in Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Scarcella, Jonathan Stempel and Lance Tupper, writing for Reuters, report that a U.S. jury on Tuesday found the National Association of Realtors and some residential brokerages, including units of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (BRKa.N), liable to pay $1.78 billion in damages for conspiring to artificially inflate commissions for home sales. The verdict by a federal jury in Kansas City, Missouri, could upend decades-old practices that have allowed real estate agents to boost commissions as home prices and mortgage rates rise, hurting consumers by making housing transactions more expensive. Plaintiffs in the class action included sellers of more than 260,000 homes in Missouri, Kansas and Illinois between 2015 and 2022, who objected to the commissions they were obligated to pay buyers' brokers. The verdict followed a two-week trial, and the damages award can be tripled under U.S. antitrust law to more than $5.3 billion. "Today was a day of accountability," said Michael Ketchmark, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. The defendants included Berkshire-owned HomeServices of America and two subsidiaries, as well as the realty Keller Williams. NAR spokesperson Mantill Williams said the trade group plans to appeal, and seek reduced damages. HomeServices said it was disappointed in the verdict and planned to appeal, while Keller Williams spokesperson Darryl Frost said the realty company would consider its options for an appeal. "This is not the end," Frost said. Broker compensation in the U.S. has typically been about 5% to 6% of a home's sales price, with about half paid to a buyer's broker. Home sellers complained that this model suppressed competition by keeping commissions for buyer brokers in the 2-1/2 to 3% range despite the brokers' diminishing role, with many buyers able to find homes independently online. Sellers said the arrangement had "severe anticompetitive effects" and made "no economic sense, except for the buyer broker." The defendants denied wrongdoing, with the NAR saying there was no evidence agents were required to "make offers of compensation at all, let alone at amounts that stabilize, fix, or raise commissions." Re/Max (RMAX.N) and Anywhere Real Estate (HOUS.N), whose brands include Century 21, Coldwell Banker and Corcoran, had been defendants but settled before trial, with Re/Max paying $55 million and Anywhere paying $83.5 million, without admitting liability. Shares of real estate brokerages not involved in the verdict closed lower. Re/Max fell 4.4% and Anywhere fell 2.7%, while online brokers Zillow Group (ZG.O) and Redfin (RDFN.O) declined 6.9% and 5.7%, respectively. The U.S. Department of Justice is separately asking a federal appeals court in Washington to let it revive an antitrust probe into the NAR's practices. [GN] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Leone Appeals Summary Judgment to 1st Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON LEONE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Jason Leone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00323-JJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Washington County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract arising from the foreclosure on the Plaintiff's real property located in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. On July 14, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on Oct. 5, 2023. The Court held that the Defendants complied with the notice requirements in the mortgage and were not in breach of contract. Because the Court determined that there are no disputed issues of material fact in the record and that the Plaintiff's arguments in support of his claim are unpersuasive, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate case is captioned Leone v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-1856, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on October 23, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JASON LEONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Todd Steven Dion, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD S. DION, ESQ. 15 Cottage Ave., Ste. 202 Quincy, MA 02169 Telephone: (401) 965-4131 Defendants-Appellees NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al. are represented by: Jeffrey C. Ankrom, Esq. CITIZENS BANK NA 1 Citizens Bank Way Johnston, RI 02919 Telephone: (401) 524-0648 - and - Joseph A. Farside, Jr., Esq. Krystle S. Guillory Tadesse, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 2800 Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 274-9200 NAUTO INC: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the maker of camera technology used by trucking companies and others to monitor workers while on the job has become one of the latest targets of a potentially costly class action lawsuit under Illinois' stringent biometrics privacy law. On Oct. 18, attorneys with the firm of Beaumont Costales, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Sunnyvale, California-based Nauto Inc. The lawsuit claims Nauto should pay, potentially heavily, for supplying trucking companies and others with tech that scans the faces of truck drivers and other workers while they are working, to monitor their conditions and actions in real time. The lawsuit asserts Nauto's technology violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) because it scans the workers' so-called "facial geometry" - a biometric identifier - without first securing consent from the worker being scanned, or providing workers with notices they claim are required by the BIPA law regarding how the face scan data will be stored, shared, used and ultimately destroyed. The lawsuit comes as plaintiffs lawyers, particularly from the Beaumont Costales firm, have also filed a growing batch of class actions taking aim at trucking companies and other employers that utilize technology, such as has been allegedly supplied by Nauto. Those lawsuits also level similar claims against the trucking companies. But in the lawsuit against Nauto, the lawsuit asserts the tech vendor itself should also pay under the BIPA law. The lawsuit against Nauto was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Daniel Norred, identified as a truck driver who worked in Illinois. According to the lawsuit, Norred is one of many truck drivers in Illinois whose faces have been repeatedly scanned by an in-vehicle mounted camera system sold by Nauto, which allegedly allows employers to scan drivers' faces while they are working to analyze driving behavior, including whether the driver may be drowsy or inattentive while driving. From this information, employers can allegedly create a score on which to grade their drivers. The lawsuit asserts Nauto never secured consent or provided notice to Norred or other drivers before employers began using the face-scanning cameras. The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Nauto to pay potentially massive damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation of the BIPA law, spread across an undefined class of other truck drivers operating in Illinois whose faces may have been scanned by Nauto's cameras. In recent rulings, the Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted the BIPA law to define individual violations of the BIPA law as each time a person's biometric identifiers are scanned without meeting the law's technical notice and consent provisions. Further, plaintiffs can demand damages dating back over the five years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. Thus, when multiplied across potentially hundreds or even thousands of drivers, Nauto could face damages that could quickly climb into the many millions of dollars. Lawyers who bring such lawsuits typically claim about one-third of the payouts as fees. Norred and the potential class of additional truck driver plaintiffs are represented in the case by attorneys William H. Beaumont and Roberto L. Costales, of the Beaumont Costales firm. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Outdoor Dining Program Nuisance ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Brachfeld, writing for AMNY, reports that New York City has been hit with a class action lawsuit seeking to overturn its newly permanent outdoor dining program, with petitioners claiming the popular al fresco eateries are an unconstitutional nuisance. The suit, filed against the city in Manhattan Supreme Court on Monday by 30 New York City residents, claims the recently-enacted permanent outdoor dining program -- which replaced the temporary, emergency-authorized program that began during the COVID-19 pandemic -- is illegal for not having been subject to a full environmental impact review and public comment. That allowed the city to enact what the petitioners describe as a "massive change to the cityscape that defines New Yor[k] City" that is "highly destructive to city neighborhoods and the petitioners who reside in them." Before the pandemic, outdoor dining was only allowed in a few areas of the city, mostly in Manhattan, and was subject to a long, bureaucratic and expensive approval process. Soon after COVID-19 struck the city and forced restaurants to shut their doors, city officials used emergency powers to significantly liberalize permitting for outdoor dining, allowing thousands of eateries the chance to reopen for customers to dine in and greatly expanding the scope of al fresco eating. Many built elaborate shacks on the sidewalk or roadway for dining. City officials and restaurant industry reps have claimed the outdoor dining program saved 100,000 restaurant industry jobs and kept innumerable eateries from having to close. Pandemic-era polls showed the program to be broadly popular with New Yorkers; a December 2020 poll by Siena College and Transportation Alternatives found 64% of voters, including 78% of Manhattan voters, found outdoor dining a valuable use of curb space. Still, others were less than enthused from the beginning. Critics of outdoor dining have contended that dining sheds take away parking spots, attract rats and other vermin, are havens for homeless New Yorkers and crime, and bring noisy crowds to their blocks for all-night revelry. "This saturation of outdoor seating is not serving me, my family, or my business. It has made this neighborhood pretty much unlivable most of the time," said Ellen Koenigsberg, a Lower East Side resident who owns a vintage clothing shop and is a petitioner in the class-action suit, in an affidavit. "I feel like I always have uninvited guests in my apartment that just will not leave." Others are perturbed by what they contend are "ugly" dining sheds. "They mostly look like large, dirty garages and disrupt and change the nature of the street," said fellow Lower East Side resident and petitioner Elizabeth Dworkin. "It feels like a fort has been built on the block to keep the local residents away so paying customers and bars, clubs, and restaurants can occupy all of the public space." The temporary program was also the subject of lawsuits in the intervening years, which were repeatedly tossed by judges. But in August, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the city could no longer rely on emergency executive orders to underpin the program. Just two days later, the City Council voted to approve a permanent outdoor dining program. The final product was the result of years of discussions between City Hall, the restaurant industry, and other local stakeholders. The final program permanently liberalized the permitting process for outdoor dining setups, allowing them across the city at a more affordable cost. It also established new rules governing the program, necessitating scaled-down dining setups and allowing dining in the roadway for just eight months of the year. Andrew Rigie, the head of the NYC Hospitality Alliance, a prominent restaurant trade group, accused the petitioners of simply opposing outdoor dining, and using bureaucracy as cover. "Some of the same people who demanded that the emergency outdoor dining program end and a permanent program be created are now suing to stop the permanent program from taking effect, which leads us to believe their real motive is just to end alfresco dining, something that is overwhelmingly popular across the city, and vital to local jobs and small businesses," Rigie said in a message to amNewYork Metro. Supporters contend the program was subject to considerable public input during a long legislative process. Under the permanent program, all outdoor dining applications will have to submit to review by local community boards, where repurposing curb space is often controversial, while those in historic districts must also get approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Further, the city released an "environmental assessment" for outdoor dining in 2021, finding it would not have adverse impacts, though not a more laborious environmental impact statement, petitioners note. New Jersey is making a similar argument in its federal lawsuit seeking to overturn New York's congestion pricing program. Fewer than 1% of the city's roughly 3 million on-street parking spots were reclaimed for dining sheds, the New York Post found in 2021. Outdoor dining supporters argue this contradicts claims by petitioners of a "massive change to the cityscape," although certain areas do tend to have higher concentrations of sheds. "Apparently some people have gotten so used to cars clogging their public spaces that they have Stockholm Syndrome. Luckily, the rest of the city has seen the benefits outdoor dining as clear as day," said Jackson Chabot, director of advocacy and organizing at Open Plans. "Trying to block progress at our curbs is retrograde, obstructionist, and not representative of popular opinion." "It's also futile," Chabot continued, "because Open Restaurants has already passed -- after years of public review, I might add. It's a wildly popular program that will go down in history as a watershed improvement to life in the city." A spokesperson for the Department of Transportation said the Adams administration stands behind the program and process, and will defend them in court. "Outdoor dining saved 100,000 jobs in New York City at the height of the pandemic, and the Adams administration's permanent Dining Out NYC program will build on the best parts of that program while transforming our streets into more vibrant public spaces," said DOT spokesperson Vin Barone. "The city stands firmly by its thorough and comprehensive review of the Dining Out NYC program and will defend it in court." Outdoor dining is not the only pandemic-era innovation under threat from litigation. In April, a group of New Yorkers filed a federal lawsuit attempting to overturn the Open Streets program, which has closed some Big Apple streets to cars and opened them up to pedestrians, cyclists, and programming; plaintiffs claim the program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. [GN] NOVO NORDISK: Faces Class Action Over Ozempic Side Effects ---------------------------------------------------------- Katie Dangerfield, writing for Global News, reports that Ozempic maker Novo Nordisk is facing a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the company has not properly warned Canadians about severe side effects, including stomach paralysis and gallbladder disease. The proposed class action lawsuit was filed on Oct. 6 in British Columbia for alleged damages arising from Novo Nordisk's drugs Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy. The lawsuit claims the pharmaceutical company was "negligent" in sufficiently warning health-care professionals and the public about the "dangerous" risks linked with the drugs. "It's filed as a national class on behalf of all Canadians that have taken Ozempic," said Jill McCartney, a lawyer and partner at Siskinds, the London, Ont.-based law firm behind the litigation. "The alleged risks with the drug and injuries that people have suffered relate to problems with gastrointestinal issues… notably stomach paralysis and intestinal blockages." None of the claims laid out in the proposed class action lawsuit have been proven in court. Ozempic and Rybelsus were approved by Health Canada as medications to treat diabetes, but not weight loss. Wegovy, a higher-dose version of Ozempic, was approved for weight loss in Canada but has never been sold in the country due to high global demand and supply shortages. Since Ozempic's approval in 2018, it has gained significant popularity in Canada. The drug's medical ingredient, semaglutide, works by mimicking a hormone called glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). This stimulates the release of insulin and helps to reduce blood sugar spikes. It's also effective at regulating diet by targeting areas of the brain that make a person feel fuller. 'Dangerous side effects' On Ozempic's website, the main side effects listed include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation and abdominal pain. The proposed class action lawsuit alleges Novo Nordisk does not make the "dangerous side effects" (such as stomach paralysis) more prominent for providers and patients. "Part of manufacturing a drug is there's a duty to warn of the risks," McCartney said. "The manufacturer failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with taking the drug." In an email to Global News on Tuesday, a spokesperson from Novo Nordisk said the company stands behind the safety of all its GLP-1 medicines "when used by appropriate patients consistent with the product labelling and approved indications." "Our team is continuously monitoring the safety profile of our products and collaborating closely with health authorities to ensure patient safety information, including adequate information on side effects, is included in the product labelling," the spokesperson said when asked to comment on the proposed class action. "GLP-1 has been used to treat type 2 diabetes for more than 15 years, and for treatment of obesity for eight years… Semaglutide has been extensively examined in robust clinical development programs, large real-world evidence studies and has cumulatively over 9.5 million patient years of exposure." However, McCartney said she does not believe the warnings for gastroparesis and gallbladder disease issues have been properly featured by the company (such as in the product monograph, which is intended to provide information for the safe and effective use of a new drug). For example, gastroparesis (also known as stomach paralysis) is not mentioned in Ozempic's Canadian product monograph, she said. "The warnings for gastroparesis are not adequately warned of. In terms of the gastrointestinal issues, there are things that are missing and there are things that are not described in sufficient detail," McCartney said. On Oct. 5, a University of British Columbia (UBC) study published in JAMA, linked popular weight loss drugs, such as Ozempic, to stomach paralysis and other serious gastrointestinal conditions. The UBC researchers found that when people take these drugs strictly for weight loss, it can cause a serious risk of medical conditions, such as stomach paralysis. However, Global News talked with one expert outside the study who said he was skeptical of the findings, saying there may be biases in the data. For example, one of the concerns raised was that the study was retrospective, which means it relied on information from events that have already occurred and might contain more biases compared to a randomized control trial. And although the side effects raised in the UBC study are rare, the authors said because millions of people around the world use the drugs, "it could lead to hundreds of thousands of people experiencing these conditions." About the proposed lawsuit The plaintiff in the proposed class action lawsuit, Suzanne Talbot, is a 57-year-old resident of Jaffray, B.C., who started taking Ozempic in 2021, according to the civil claim. After taking Ozempic, the clam alleges she immediately started experiencing chronic diarrhea. Later she began to experience pain, heartburn and shortness of breath, "which have resulted in hospital admissions and have worsened over time," the lawsuit states. In August 2023, Talbot was admitted to the hospital and was diagnosed with a blockage in her biliary system (also called cholangitis), it states. "Health-care professionals indicated to the plaintiff that the blockage was linked to her Ozempic use. Shortly following that hospital admission, the plaintiff ceased her use of Ozempic," the lawsuit says. After taking Ozempic, Talbot said she continued to experience symptoms, such as shortness of breath, pain and heartburn. "The plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons in Canada who are similarly situated," the lawsuit says. The lawsuit then alleges that Novo Nordisk misrepresented its product as safe, which "in fact, these medications cause serious injuries, conditions and complications." It added that patients who were prescribed semaglutide products, like Ozempic, were misled about its safety and efficacy leading to serious adverse side effects "with significant consequences, such as the development of gallbladder-related diseases and other hepatobiliary complications, gastrointestinal paralysis, gastrointestinal obstruction, malnutrition, and death, especially in certain special populations," it states. The plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $500,000, but McCartney said this number could change as the class action is only in the early stages. The lawsuit is currently going through the court system to get certified, she said. "In the meantime, we're getting contacted by different Canadians who have taken the drug and suffered injury or harm," she said. The exact number of Canadians using these weight loss drugs is not known, but Ozempic has become so popular that in August, its manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, announced a shortage of the medication in Canada. [GN] PAPA JOHN'S: Curd Appeals Privacy Rights Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCES CURD is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Frances Curd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Papa John's International, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03185-JRR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.papajohns.com, in violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and for invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors, including the Plaintiff. On February 17, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin on Sept. 19, 2023. The Court held that the Plaintiff fails to allege facts that support the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Papa John's. Because the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Papa John's, the Court did not address Papa John's allegation of failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the case was closed. The appellate case is captioned Frances Curd v. Papa John's International, Incorporated, Case No. 23-2099, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 23, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FRANCES CURD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6486 - and - Steven Mark Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 33 Whitehall Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 - and - James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 888 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Defendant-Appellee PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED is represented by: Eric C. Bosset, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 - and - Ziwei Song, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 415 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-7024 PENSION BENEFIT: Feregrino Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elisa Feregrino and Melissa Seymour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION a/k/a PROGRESS, Progress Software Corporation also known as: Progress, Case No. 0:23-cv-02176 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-12507-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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Ave. S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.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 - and - Holley C. M. Horrell, Esq. GREENE ESPEL PLLP 222 S 9th St., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 373-8394 Email: hhorrell@greeneespel.com PENSION BENEFIT: Garrison Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lisa Garrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; THE BERWYN GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 0:23-cv-02071 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-12491-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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com - and - David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 608 2nd Ave S Ste 650 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ& KLINGEDR 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (773) 545-9607 Email: gklinger@milberg.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 PIEDMONT HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over User Data Sharing -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges Piedmont Healthcare has secretly transmitted patients' personal data to Meta Platforms (Facebook) without consent. The 49-page lawsuit says the healthcare provider, which operates a massive network of hospitals, urgent care centers and medical clinics throughout Georgia, was exposed in June 2022 by nonprofit news publication The Markup for its alleged use of a tracking code on its website and patient portal to collect and share patients' private information with Facebook. From at least 2020 to approximately June 2022, Piedmont.org and the patient portal found at MyChart.Piedmont.org utilized the Meta pixel, a piece of code that can be embedded into a website in order to allow Facebook to track visitors' interactions with the page and use this data for advertising purposes, the suit claims. According to the case, patients can use the defendant's website and patient portal to search for physicians, research treatments, access medical records, make appointments and more. Per the complaint, the tracking tool was able to collect and transmit directly to Facebook vast amounts of private data, including a patient's name, appointment type and date, medical provider details, treatment location, medical condition, computer IP address, buttons clicked, contact information and any real-time communications with doctors. The filing contends that Piedmont's "conscious decision to prioritize its desires for profit over its own responsibilities and its patients' privacy rights" has resulted in the improper disclosure of potentially millions of people's sensitive data. The defendant never informed website visitors that their personal information would be sent to Facebook or that it was "tracking their every movement" through the Meta pixel, the lawsuit charges. "Piedmont did so because it knew that this sensitive information had tremendous value and that [the plaintiff] and Class Members would not consent to the collection, disclosure and use of their private information in this manner," the suit argues. The lawsuit looks to represent any Georgia residents whose private information was disclosed to a third party without authorization or consent through the pixel on Piedmont.org and MyChart.Piedmont.org. [GN] PSP GROUP: Adams Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------ JILL ADAMS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Jill Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PSP Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01210-RLW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for surreptitiously intercepting the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.petsuppliesplus.com, in violation of the Missouri Wiretap Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and for invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors and a trespass to chattels. On Feb. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on Feb. 24, 2023. On Sept. 13, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, through an Order entered by Judge Ronnie L. White. The Court held that it does not have the authority to proceed on the merits of the case and declined to address the other issues raised in the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the cause of action without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Jill Adams v. PSP Group, LLC, Case No. 23-3303, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 17, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on November 27, 2023; -- Appellant Jill Adams brief is due on November 27, 2023; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JILL ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Maureen Kane Berg, Esq. Karen Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL Suite 2200 100 Washington Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE Suite 1700 100 Washington Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 (612) 767-3613 - and - Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL 308 Hutchinson Road Ballwin, MO 63011 Defendant-Appellee PSP GROUP, LLC is represented by: James L. Rockney, Esq. REED & SMITH Suite 1200, Reed Smith Center 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-4046 - and - Gerard Michael Stegmaier, Esq. REED & SMITH 1100 East Tower 1301 K. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 414-9228 - and - Karen Vaysman, Esq. REED & SMITH 40th Floor 10 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-2866 PURFOODS LLC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Clark Kauffman, writing for Iowa Capital Dispatch, reports that an Iowa-based national meal-delivery company is facing another class-action lawsuit in a blizzard of litigation over the alleged loss of customer data in a massive cyberattack. The latest lawsuit against Purfoods, which does business as Mom's Meals, was originally filed in South Carolina before being transferred to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa the week of Oct. 29. It is at least the 11th class-action lawsuit filed against the company in the past two months, although several of those cases were recently consolidated into a single case. Mom's Meals, based in Ankeny, serves tens of thousands of individuals with special nutritional needs, providing them with ready-to-eat meals. The company is being sued for allegedly failing to properly safeguard customers' personally identifiable information, including protected health information that would include names, health insurance and billing information, medical diagnostic codes and medical treatment information. The customers were allegedly required to share their personal health information with the company so that meals could be tailored to meet their nutritional needs. The lawsuits allege the company acquired and stored customer information in a manner that allowed third-party cybercriminals to gain access to the data on Jan. 16 for their own marketing and sales purposes. Suit: More than 1 million people affected The total number of individuals who allegedly had their data compromised is about 1.2 million, according to the most recent lawsuit. That lawsuit claims the company didn't learn of the January data breach until Feb. 22 and that customers weren't informed until August. The customers "remain, even today, in the dark regarding what particular data was stolen, the particular malware used, and what steps are being taken, if any, to secure their personal health information going forward," the lawsuit alleges. It notes that the Federal Trade Commission has concluded that a company's failure to maintain reasonable and appropriate data security for consumers' sensitive personal information is an "unfair practice" in violation of federal regulations. Attorneys for the newest plaintiffs argue that a single individual's personal information can be sold on the dark web at prices ranging from $40 to $200. In addition to unspecified damages, the most recent lawsuit seeks an injunction prohibiting the company from maintaining customers' personal health information on any cloud-based database. The cases have yet to be granted class-action status by the courts and Mom's Meals has yet to file a response to the specific claims of the various plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the newest case are represented by Paul Doolittle of the Charleston, S.C., law firm of Poulin, Willey & Anastopoulo. [GN] RALPH ROWE: Ontario Court Okays $13.25MM Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Puddister, writing for Anglican Journal, reports an Ontario court has approved a multimillion dollar settlement in the class-action lawsuit against Ralph Rowe, a former Anglican priest and Scout leader convicted of 75 sexual crimes against children in northern Ontario and Manitoba. Justice Bonnie Warkentin said at an Oct. 27 hearing that she would sign orders that day approving the settlement, which totals $13.25 million and will provide $350,000 in compensation for each class member abused by Rowe. The settlement also requires the Anglican Church of Canada and Scouts Canada to formally apologize. "This is a historic day and I am grateful that the courts can offer the opportunity we have to provide some sort of resolution here," Warkentin said. The hearing at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sought to determine whether the proposed settlement was "fair, reasonable and in the best interests" of individuals seeking compensation for sexual abuse committed by Rowe. The abuse took place between 1975 and 1987 within the geographic boundaries of the former Anglican diocese of Keewatin—an area split since 2014 between the Indigenous Spiritual Ministry of Mishamikoweesh and the diocese of Rupert's Land. Lawyer Jonathan Ptak, a partner at the firm Koskie Minsky LLP which represents the class members, said that there had been no objections to the proposed settlement. Alvin McKay—a member of Kitchenuhmaykoosib-Inninuwug First Nation who had been sexually assaulted by Rowe at least three times over a two-year period, starting when McKay was five—was also present at the hearing as representative plaintiff in the lawsuit. In an affidavit, McKay said a formal apology was "very important to the victims of Ralph Rowe, but also to the greater communities where we live." 'A huge impact on my life' The CBC reported McKay spoke to media after approval of the settlement. "I'm just glad it's over," McKay said. "The outcome of this has . . . played a huge impact on my life, so I hope everything goes well for everybody else. I think we'll be OK." An official statement by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada welcomed the settlement. It noted that in 2017, then General Secretary Michael Thompson said then primate Fred Hiltz was committed to apologizing for abuse committed by Rowe while the latter was employed by the Anglican Church. "The Church paused its steps towards an apology to avoid commenting on a matter before the courts and has been grateful for the feedback gained from survivors, their Elders and their communities throughout this process about the words and commitments that would be most meaningful to them," the statement said. "With the approval of the settlement, it will be possible for Primate Linda Nicholls to conclude her consultation with Indigenous leaders and to make an informed, engaged and too long delayed apology on behalf of the whole Church. We are currently consulting with Indigenous leaders in order to appropriately deliver that apology. We continue to pray for the healing of those who have suffered harm." The settlement requires the Anglican church to meet with representatives of the affected communities to craft an apology meaningful to survivors and affected communities. First Nations leaders and mental health professionals, as detailed in the documentary film Survivors Rowe, believe Rowe abused as many as 500 children in northern Indigenous communities. The convicted pedophile has served less than five years in prison for his crimes—owing to a plea bargain with the Crown after a 1994 conviction for 39 sexual crimes. The plea bargain prevented Rowe from being sentenced to more prison time for similar convictions. Further convictions ensued in 2005 and 2009. Karen Webb, chancellor of the ecclesiastical province of Rupert's Land and one of the four members of the diocese of Keewatin legal entity, said the diocese had no plans to appeal the court's decision, which she called "a good settlement" and "a step forward." "I hope it achieves some of what it's meant to achieve, which is not just the compensation, but some form of healing," Webb said. Deputy Chief Anna Betty Achneepineskum of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, where Rowe committed his abuse, also welcomed the settlement. "Today represents a tremendous achievement for these Survivors and everyone who has worked so hard seeking validation for what they have endured," Achneepineksum said in a statement. "We acknowledge the courage and resiliency of these brave individuals who demonstrated the strength to pursue their rightful claims through a very long and difficult legal process." The deputy chief called approval of the settlement "a plateau for this process of validation and acknowledgement of the horrific abuses that were inflicted on innocent children and carried with them into adulthood." She added, "We stand with the Survivors in their accepting of this historic agreement." Achneepineksum thanked survivors, their families, supporters and legal counsel. "We cannot undo the past, but we can continue to move forward in a good way to support all those who have suffered and continue to suffer," she said. "May the Creator guide us, the Anglican Church and Boy Scouts of Canada as we move forward together." [GN] RETURN TO NATURE: Sued Over Improper Storage of Human Remains ------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Arseneau, writing for KRDO, reports that the law firm Leventhal Lewis Kuhn Taylor Swan PC filed a class action lawsuit against Return to Nature Funeral Home and its owners, Carie Hallford and Jon Hallford. The Return to Nature Funeral Home is at the center of a massive investigation after 189 bodies were found improperly stored. Court documents show that the plaintiff is Richard Law, a retired Colorado Springs educator, whose father, Roger, was recently identified as one of the 189. Law says "It is outrageous for the defendants to exploit people at their most vulnerable. Families should be able to focus on grieving their lost loved ones." Mr. Law continued, "For nearly three years, Return to Nature Funeral Home and the Hallfords allowed my father to rot along with nearly 200 others. I'm honored to stand up on behalf of my father and the other victims in this case." Leventhal Lewis Kuhn Taylor Swan PC shareholder, Andrew Swan, says that the purpose of the lawsuit is accountability. "The defendants' ghastly misconduct is what happens when profit trumps principle. Rather than cremating the bodies entrusted to them, the defendants gave counterfeit ashes to families to hide their illegal behavior," Swan said. Court documents claim that in some cases, including in Roger's case, the owners went as far as to return counterfeit ashes to the decedents' families and falsify the decedents' death certificates. They also allege that the fake ashes Law received were crushed concrete. [GN] 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. SECURITY LIFE: PHT Appeals Judgment in Excessive Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff PHT Holding I LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Final Judgment entered on September 15, 2023 in the lawsuit styled as ADVANCE TRUST & LIFE ESCROW SERVICES, LTA, as securities intermediary for LIFE PARTNERS POSITION HOLDER TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITY LIFE OF DENVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01897, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleges that the Defendants unlawfully and excessively charged the Plaintiff for cost of insurance. According to the complaint, in September 2015, the Defendant sent letters to policyholders notifying them of significant cost of insurance increases for the policies. The increase imposed on the policies was a massive 42%, which is costing the Plaintiff hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. The Defendant's letters to policyholders were deliberately cryptic as to the reasons for the increases, making no mention of mortality experience and stating only that "[t]he increase in the cost of insurance rates was made in response to the increase in the anticipated cost of providing future coverage." In sum, the Defendant has violated the terms of the policies by failing to base cost of insurance rates on the projected cost of insurance. In the face of the substantially improved mortality experience that has benefited the Defendant enormously, it has not only failed to reduce cost of insurance rates -- it has increased them, says the complaint. On January 6, 2021, Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an Order wherein Security Life's July 22, 2020 motion for summary judgment was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiff Advance Trust's renewed June 12, 2020 motion to certify was GRANTED IN PART, and the court PRELIMINARILY CERTIFIED a class of: All members of the Cost of Insurance Overcharge Class who are owners of Strategic Accumulator Universal Life Insurance. Advance Trust was APPOINTED as class representative, and Susman Godfrey was APPOINTED as class counsel. On April 18, 2023, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement. Among other things, the Preliminary Approval Order authorized notice of the Settlement, the fairness hearing, and related matters. On September 13, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On September 15, 2023, Judge Domenico entered Final Judgment which provides that the Settlement Fund Account is approved as a Qualified Settlement Fund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 468B and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, and that the action is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant and, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Order Awarding Fees and Expenses and the Final Approval Order, without costs to either party. Plaintiff PHT Holding I LLC is appealing the Final Judgment entered by Judge Domenico. For clarity, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(6), Plaintiff designates for appeal only the part of the Final Judgment that gives effect to the portion of the District Court's January 6, 2021 order granting partial summary judgment in Defendant's favor as to Plaintiff's claims for breach of its Life Design Guaranteed Universal Life policies, which order merged into the Final Judgment on September 15, 2023. The appellate case is captioned as PHT Holding I, LLC v. Security Life of Denver Insurance Company, Case No. 23-1326, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 13, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PHT Holding I, LLC is represented by: Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Michael Gervais, Esq. Lora Krsulich, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com mgervais@susmangodfrey.com lkrsulich@susmangodfrey.com - and - Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Zach Savage, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019-6023 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com zsavage@susmangodfrey.com - and - Paul H. Schwartz, Esq. SHOEMAKER GHISELLI + SCHWARTZ LLC 1811 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 530-3452 E-mail: pschwartz@sgslitigation.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend 2020 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] STERILIZATION SERVICES: Sued Over Toxic Ethylene Oxide Pollution ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kayla Solomon, writing for Fox13, reports that Mallory Heights is the very neighborhood Sterilization Services of Tennessee has emitted ethylene oxide since 1979. Whether you live a half-mile or 3 miles away, neighbors say there's one health problem they've unfortunately all had to deal with. "When somebody tells you, you got stage 4 cancers, you know, you might be here, might be here today, gone tomorrow," said Ural Grant, a South Memphis resident. Rose Sims, another resident, said, "In 2019, I was diagnosed with breast cancer." Lettie White is Sims' neighbor: "I was cancer free. And all of a sudden they said they saw a spot on my lungs again." Grant, Sims and White live within the blue areas of this ethylene oxide risk area map. "Well, we used to be like to say we should be outside barbecuing," White said. "I used to cut my lawn. We did my lawn. I used to love to do that, love to be outside barbecue on the back. And there you would want to go for a walk around the block. We can't do that anymore." All three said they never put two and two together about where their cancer diagnosis came from until last year, when the EPA the Shelby County Health Department began holding community meetings to raise awareness of the effects of ethylene oxide. As our Contaminated Community investigations previously reported, the cancer risk from ethylene oxide is up to 60 times higher than previously understood. Those who live near facilities that use ethylene oxide are at highest risk because certain emissions of the toxic gas are still legal. Now, attorneys are putting together a class action lawsuit. "As far as diagnoses, what we're talking about breast cancer cases, there's a very high incidence of breast cancer cases when exposed to ETO and also lymphoid cancers. So that includes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma and lymphocytic leukemia. Also, we're looking into cases relating to stomach cancers, brain cancers and even miscarriages or birth defects and other forms of adult and childhood leukemia," said Luke Sanderson, an attorney with Wampler, Carroll, Wilson & Sanderson. Sanderson is the local attorney listening to and handling the class action suit against Sterilization Services of Tennessee. He said they're working to track down people impacted the most, whether it's people who currently live in South Memphis, or people who used to live there. "So what we're looking for are people who have lived within a 4-mile radius of Sterilization Services, stronger claims are going to come from people who lived there in the 80s," he explained. Sanderson added that family members who may have lost a loved one to one of the mentioned diseases could also qualify. He says the best thing to have is documentation from an oncologist or doctor. The court could also order medical monitoring for any current or future health problems for people in this neighborhood. For now, the decision is up to neighbors about how, or if, they want to seek damages. Many of them have questions about the legal process. "What kind of fees that's involved in it? And, you know, just how many people was involved and just, you know, is this something that they think this, you know, is winnable," said Grant. He added that he's interested in joining if attorneys decide he can. The Memphis and Shelby County Air Pollution Control Board was supposed to hold a hearing on Thursday about toxic ethylene oxide pollution. They were not able to listen to the appeal because not enough members were present to create a quorum. Sims said she's skeptical: "Her illness may be more severe than mine. So you can't put me in the class with everybody else when you don't know what everybody went through." This class action suit is still accepting cases for consideration. If you currently or previously lived within 4 miles of Sterilization Services of Tennessee, you could be eligible. To find out more, you can reach out to Luke Sanderson at Luke@wcwslaw.com or give him a call at 901-523-1844. [GN] SUNPOWER CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ: SPWR) securities between March 9, 2023 and October 24, 2023. SunPower is a solar technology and energy services provider. For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. What is this Case About: SunPower Corporation (SPWR) Misled Investors Regarding a Material Weakness in the Company's Internal Control Over Financial Reporting According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that (1) due to a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting, the Company had inaccurately reported cost of revenue and inventory metrics, and (2) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant charges to restate prior reporting. The complaint alleges that on October 24, 2023, SunPower filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission revealing material weakness in its internal controls and the impending restatement of certain financial statements. The 8-K disclosed that investors should no longer rely upon the audited financial statements for the period ended January 1, 2023, and the unaudited financial statements for Q1 and Q2 2023. The Company added that it planned to restate these financial statements. SunPower explained that it had overstated the value of consignment inventory of certain microinverter components, causing it to understate the associated cost of revenue. On this news, the Company's share price fell by 18.1% to close at $4.06 per share on October 25, 2023. What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against SunPower Corporation. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. Plaintiffs must file their lead plaintiff papers by December 26, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against SunPower Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/robbins-llp/ [GN] TESLA INC: Faces Class Actions in Quebec Over Paint Deterioration ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that two judgments authorizing class action lawsuits against automaker Tesla in Canada have been handed down by the Quebec Superior Court. Law firms in Montreal and Granby confirmed on Wednesday that the suits were approved last September. In the first case, vehicles affected include Tesla models 3 and Y manufactured since Jan. 1, 2018. The plaintiff alleges there are premature paint deterioration problems. To date, more than 25,000 Tesla models 3 and Y vehicles have been sold in Quebec. In the second case, the plaintiff accuses Tesla of not providing a premium connectivity service that is supposed to be included with the purchase of all Tesla-branded cars sold between July 1, 2018 and May 18, 2020. Tesla allegedly charged owners a connectivity fee to continue accessing the service or terminated it for anyone who refused to pay. The lawyers point out that the premium service is free of charge as of May 2020 for these vehicles. CBG Avocats in Montreal and CBL Avocats in Granby invite anyone who has owned or still owns a Tesla car covered by one of these authorized class actions to contact the attorneys. [GN] TROPIX MEDIA: Baeza Appeals Ruling in Weingeist Suit to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant MARIO BAEZA filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated September 15, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled RACHEL WEINGEIST, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated who were employed by TROPIX MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT, TROPIX HOLDINGS LLC, and TROPIX INC., Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants v. TROPIX MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT, TROPIX HOLDINGS LLC, TROPIX INC., MARIO BAEZA, TAYMI CESPEDES, JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, and TANIA MILAN, Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs. TROPIX MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT, TROPIX HOLDINGS LLC, TROPIX INC., and MARIO BAEZA, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. RACHEL WEINGEIST, PERERA COMPANY LLC, and PICKLED PUNK SUBLEASE LLC, Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-275, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this action was commenced on Jan. 10, 2020, with the filing of a complaint against Tropix Media & Entertainment, Tropix Holdings LLC, Tropix Inc., Mario Baeza, Taymi Cespedes, Javier Rodriguez, and Tania Milan. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on Jan. 12, 2020. The FAC brings a putative class action, on behalf of Rachel Weingeist and all others similarly situated, and contains five claims for relief: (1) breach of employment contract; (2) unpaid wages, overtime, and violations of record-keeping requirements under New York Labor Law; (3) unpaid wages, overtime, and violations of record-keeping requirements under the Federal Labor Standards Act; (4) quantum meruit; and (5) declaratory judgment that the practices complained of are unlawful under the FLSA and NYLL. On April 27, 2022, Defendants Tropix Holdings LLC, Tropix Media and Entertainment, Tropix Inc., and Mario Baeza (collectively, "Tropix") filed an answer to the FAC and brought a third-party complaint and a counter claim against Pickled Punk, Perera & Co. LLC, and Rachel Weingeist. On Oct. 26, 2022, Geoffrey Mueller of the Law Offices of Geoffrey D. Mueller, LLC, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Tropix. The motion also moved to extend time to serve discovery demands and to extend time to respond to discovery. An affirmation of Mr. Mueller in support of the motion was filed under seal. Meanwhile, on Nov. 8, 2022, Pickled Punk filed its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). On Nov. 29, 2022, while the motion to withdraw as counsel remained pending, Tropix requested that the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint be adjourned until a decision was issued on the motion to withdraw. The next day, Mueller's motion to withdraw as counsel for Tropix was granted. That Order also directed Tropix to retain successor counsel and that successor counsel enter their appearance by Jan. 3, 2023. Successor counsel for Tropix did not enter an appearance by Jan. 3, 2023. On Jan. 9, 2022, Pickled Punk requested that the Court enter an order granting its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No appearance has been filed on behalf of Tropix and no opposition has been filed by Tropix in response to Pickled Punk's motion to dismiss. On February 1, 2023, Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Pickled Punk's motion to dismiss, concluding that the third-party complaint fails to meet the standard for subject matter jurisdiction. On March 3, 2023, Judge Ramos dismissed Tropix's third-party complaint without prejudice. On July 11, 2023, Judge Ramos entered an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel Defendant Baeza to respond to the post-judgment discovery demands. On September 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to compel in its entirety. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(4), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response to Plaintiffs post-judgment discovery demands shall be treated by the Court as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. Mr. Baeza was furthered ordered to pay Plaintiff her fees and costs incurred in filing her motion in the sum of $6,525.00 in fees and $12.48 in costs for a total sum in fees and costs of $6,537.48. The appellate case is captioned as Weingeist v. Tropix Media and Entertainment, Case No. 23-7342, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Oct. 13, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Appellant MARIO BAEZA, of Fort Lee, New Jersey, appears pro se. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Over eCourts Software Expanded --------------------------------------------------------------- Russ Bowen, writing for WNCN, reports that several months after the software eCourts pilot launched in Wake, Johnston, Lee and Harnett counties, a class action lawsuit was filed claiming the new software system led to wrongful arrests and unlawful detainment. As the launch has now expanded into Mecklenburg County, so has the original lawsuit. "These are people who either paid a bond or for some other reason were authorized to be released from jail but weren't for in some instances up to two to three days extra time," said Zack Ezor. Ezor is based in the Durham office of Tin Fulton, Walker and Owen Law and is a lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the class action complaint. Part of what Ezor referred to is spelled out in a newly amended complaint. It alleges that during the first four days of the Mecklenburg County launch, technical defects led to 66 people being detained for three to four days when they shouldn't have been. On Sunday, Oct. 29, magistrates were unable to schedule future court dates because of issues with the software. "From the prosecution side, not being able to issue warrants… you know, we've got public safety concerns about that. Also think about not being able to issue things like restraining orders or protective orders," said Ezor. The Oct. 29 issue led to district court judge Elizabeth Thornton Trosch's authorization of the use of paper. By the time court opened on Oct. 30, the issue was resolved. The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, which is overseeing the project that Tyler Technologies was contracted to do, said in a statement: "Our understanding is that Mecklenburg County did not revert to paper and court sessions are operating normally this morning. Following a regular software update, the eCourts vendor had to conduct additional maintenance to resolve an issue in which magistrates could not select a future court date while completing criminal processes in eWarrants. This issue lasted from approximately 6 p.m. to midnight and no other eWarrants functionality was impacted. For those processes that required entry of a next court date, those processes had to be completed in paper during that timeframe and were later entered into the system." Eventually all county courts in the state will transition to eCourts. The contract for the software and its implementation comes at a price tag of $100 million and is largely funded by tax dollars and court fees. Ezor said with the long history of problems since the original eCourts pilot launch in February, NC AOC should have been better prepared, but still praised the judge's order for a backup system. "That's exactly the sort of backup that we've been jockeying for since we filed this lawsuit. It strikes me as entirely reasonable that as we're experimenting with the new system statewide and working out the problems that we would be able to pivot back to a paper system if we need to so that our court system doesn't just grind to a halt," said Ezor. The amended complaint added several defendants. Wake County Clerk of Superior Court Blair Williams, Lee County Clerk of Superior Court Susie Thomas, Executive Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts Ryan Boyce and NC AOC Chief Business Officer Brad Fowler. NC AOC said it could not comment on the pending lawsuit. [GN] UNITED STATES: Wa. Woman Joins Discrimination Class Action v. DND ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Gallup, writing for Northwest Public Broadcasting, reports that every time Hayden Powell sits down to apply for a job, she has to relive an experience she went through over two decades ago, when she was discharged from the military because of her sexual orientation. "They cut your military ID in half in front of you," Powell said. "And they escort you off the base. So you leave with not only a tremendous amount of shame and embarrassment, but you also leave feeling like a criminal." In 1999, Powell was discharged from the military under the since-repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, which banned LGBTQ people from serving openly in the military. Powell received an "Uncharacterized discharge" and her sexual orientation is identified on her DD-214, the form that reports someone's separation from the military. With discharges characterized as something other than "honorable," former service members may not qualify for certain benefits such as access to higher education through the G.I. Bill and medical care through Veterans Affairs, as was the case for Powell. At 21 years old, Powell said she felt alone, isolated, ashamed and embarrassed when she was discharged. For years on job applications, she said she avoided the question "Are you a veteran?" altogether. "I didn't even think I was one," Powell said. Decades ago, Powell said she chose to join the military to better both herself and the world around her. Now, as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense, she wants to make things better for veterans like her. "I wanted to be able to help people. And to me, I couldn't think of a more honorable way to do that than joining the military," Powell said. "If I can be somebody who can help institute that change by using my voice in this lawsuit, that's why I decided to join." The lawsuit was originally filed against the department in August, and amended Oct. 26 to include Powell. It alleges that instead of proactively taking steps to right the harms caused by giving these service members less-than-honorable discharges, the government has instead pointed to a preexisting record correction process for people to prove they faced discrimination. "There is no legitimate governmental interest in the ongoing deprivation of veterans' benefits, particularly after the Government halted the policies that triggered the reduced discharge statuses after its own recognition that the policies were discriminatory and violated the rights of service members," read lawsuit documents. People discharged under former policies can go through that process to have their discharge status upgraded and amended, but Powell said it's a long undertaking -- one she's still in after more than a year. "The irony of being required to prove discrimination against the very institution that discriminated against you is probably one of the biggest ironies I can think of," Powell said. The process includes complicated legal terms which Powell said require an attorney to decipher, and people must recount what happened to them, essentially reliving the trauma, which Powell said not everyone is in a position to do. "We shouldn't have to do anything," Powell said. "They know who we are, because they kicked us out. And they know why." The lawsuit seeks to upgrade the status of veterans whose discharge statuses are less than honorable, and remove language that mentions sexuality from these documents. According to the suit, Powell was denied VA health care, is ineligible for the G.I. Bill, and so, instead took out loans to pay for college and has been advised by prospective employers that she would not receive veteran benefits because of her discharge classification. To this day, Powell said it stops her from applying to jobs where the employer would want to see her DD-214. "You're put in a position where you have to out yourself to a perfect stranger," Powell said. The lawsuit estimates that over tens of thousands of veterans were impacted and qualify for having their discharge status upgraded and/or corrected. To others who went through similar experiences to Powell, she had this message: "I just want all the other veterans going through the same thing right now to know that you are loved," Powell said. "And despite what the DOD says about you, you are worthy. You are not bad. And just hang in there. And I love all of you, and it's going to be okay, we're going to fix it." Now, as the defendant, the U.S. Department of Defense and branch secretaries must issue a response to the claim. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Defense said the department does not comment on ongoing litigation. [GN] WEST VIRGINIA: Accused of Destroying Documents in Jail Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Allen Adams, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reports that for the second time in a week, a West Virginia department is accused of destroying documents in a class action lawsuit, and a federal magistrate made his feelings known. In a 39-page order issued on Oct. 30, U.S. Magistrate Judge Omar Aboulhosn found in favor of attorneys representing inmates at the Southern Regional Jail near Beckley asking for a default judgment against the state Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation and multiple county commissions in Southern West Virginia. In his order, Aboulhosn found corrections officials intentionally destroyed evidence being sought in the class action lawsuit. He proposed that U.S. District Judge Frank W. Volk confirm his finding and recommended that Volk grant the plaintiff's request for default judgment against the Division of Corrections. Aboulhosn also recommended the state be prohibited from introducing evidence to dispute claims by the inmates regarding confinement conditions and other testimony, as well as other motions and sanctions aimed at current and former Division of Corrections officials. Aboulhosn wrote in his order that after serving as a judge at the state and federal levels for more than 15 years, he had never encountered a situation where a governmental agency had so flagrantly ignored efforts to retain documents, citing testimony during an Oct. 2 hearing where state officials admitted to not following state and federal rules for preservation of evidence. "The testimony . . . stands out as some of the most remarkable testimony that the undersigned has heard," Aboulhosn wrote. " . . . The failure to preserve the evidence that was destroyed in this case was intentionally done and not simply an oversight by the witnesses. The court does not make that statement flippantly but after much thought and reflection of the disturbing testimony that took place that day." Corrections Commissioner Brad Douglas received the brunt of Aboulhosn's anger, accusing Douglas and other ranking DCR officials of intentionally destroying evidence. "The intentional decisions to not preserve evidence, and to allow evidence to be destroyed was not done by low-level employees of the WVDCR but was perpetrated by the highest persons in the chain of command including the Commissioner of the WVDCR, Defendant Douglas," Aboulhosn wrote. " . . . The recommendation of default judgment to the District Judge in this case, is extraordinary, but clearly warranted considering the intentional conduct in this case and other cases that came before . . ." According to a summary of testimony from the Oct. 2 evidentiary hearing, Douglas last year never met with the Office of Technology about preserving emails, cell phone data or text messages, saying he "didn't think about it." While the entire chain of command between the Corrections Division and Southern Regional Jail about the letter from the plaintiffs requiring preservation of records, no effort was made to preserve records. The class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 21, 2022, by Michael Rose and Edward Harmon, two inmates at the Southern Regional Jail. The Corrections Division is accused by Rose and Harmon of alleged inhuman living conditions at the jail, overcrowding, lack of maintenance, unsanitary conditions and serving spoiled food, among other issues. The two inmates are seeking a ruling ordering the state to correct the conditions in Southern Regional Jail, where more than a dozen inmates have died while in custody at the facility over the last two years, according to reporting by WVNS-TV and the Beckley Register-Herald. In a separate order filed on Oct. 30, Aboulhosn ruled against motions requiring Gov. Jim Justice and the governor's Chief of State Brian Abraham to sit for depositions, though both are required to comply with subpoenas for documents. During an administration briefing, Justice said he would be willing to testify, but he has no direct knowledge to provide. "I would welcome anyone at any time to swear me in to giving sworn testimony," Justice said. "We just don't want to do something that is an absolute tee-total waste of time over something I don't know anything about." The lawsuit by Rose and Harmon is separate from a class action lawsuit brought in August by adult and juvenile inmates against the Corrections Division about conditions in all of the state's regional jails, prisons and juvenile facilities. That lawsuit accuses the state of understaffing, overcrowding, and delays of deferred maintenance for facilities. The inmates are seeking a ruling in their favor and an order to require the state to spend available surplus funds on staffing and maintenance. Justice and the Legislature included money in the current budget for deferred maintenance for correctional facilities. An August special session saw the Legislature pass bills to increase the pay for correctional officers and a one-time bonus for correctional staff. A state of emergency has been in place for the past 15 months due to severe staff vacancies in prisons and jails. In a separate class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the state's foster children, attorneys are seeking sanctions against the Department of Health and Human Resources for not keeping emails and other electronically stored documents sought in that case. [GN] WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Travis Nelson, Esq. and Andrew Soven, Esq., of Holland & Knight LLP, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that in response in part to the dozens of cases filed throughout the country related to assessment of insufficient funds (NSF) and overdraft (OD) fees, many banks and credit unions have sought to add arbitration and class action waiver provisions to their deposit agreements. If the financial institution subsequently faces a putative class action based on NSF or OD fees, the institution likely raises the arbitration clause and class action waiver through an early motion. In all likelihood, however, the plaintiff will challenge the application of the class action waiver in particular, arguing that the waiver is not effective for multiple reasons. As it turns out, on Oct. 24, 2023, two courts -- the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Pruett v. WESTconsin Credit Union, No. 2022AP887, 2023 WL 6991328 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2023), and the Supreme Court of Indiana in Land v. IU Credit Union, No. 23S-CP-115, 2023 WL 6984790 (Ind. Oct. 24, 2023) -- issued decisions regarding whether the arbitration clause and class action waiver could be enforced. And both appellate courts said "no." The Pruett Case Although the cases arise from common contexts, the principal reason for the Pruett court not enforcing the "new" provisions was the fact that, although the deposit agreement permitted the credit union to "change the terms of this Agreement," the language was not sufficiently broad to allow the credit union to add a provision (i.e., a clause relating to an entirely new subject) to the agreement. Although the court recognized long-standing law supporting the use of arbitration to resolve disputes, the court determined that the credit union's right to "change" the agreement unilaterally did not extend to mandating the use of arbitration to resolve disputes, eliminating the right to file a class action. The court cited precedent involving credit card agreements from various jurisdictions to support its conclusion and rejected out of hand an additional argument made by the credit union that, because the "Governing Law" clause required disputes to be brought "in the county in which the Credit Union as located," it could be inferred that this language could just as easily apply to arbitration. Instead, the court found that the arbitration clause "adds substantive limitations to the manner in which a legal action may be heard … [and] additions to the contract limiting the rights of the parties on the issues that were not contemplated by the original Agreement -- arbitration and class actions -- rather than amending existing terms." Pruett, at *11 (emphasis by the court). Furthermore, the court found that the credit union's action violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by "seeking to retroactively deprive another party of the legal right," namely the bringing of an action in court on behalf of a putative class. The court also found that to the extent that the amendment constituted an offer to modify the contract, the credit union failed to meet its burden of showing that the customer agreed to accept the new terms because 1) the customer's opt-out right was not clearly explained and 2) under established law, the ambiguity must be construed against the credit union. The Land Case The Indiana Supreme Court took a different route to reach the same result. In Land, the court chose to not rule on the issue of whether the amendment rights afforded by the credit union's deposit agreement allowed the credit union to amend its agreement by adding an arbitration and class action waiver provision. Instead, the court focused entirely on whether the new provision was enforceable based on the manner in which it was conveyed and purportedly accepted. Although the court held that an email notice of the deposit agreement's new "addendum," sent with the customer's account statement, was insufficient due to imprecise language, the court determined that a second notice, sent by regular mail with much clearer language, satisfied the "reasonable" notice standard under Indiana law. However, the court rejected the credit union's position that the customer accepted the terms of the "addendum" merely through silence and continued use of the account. Applying Section 69 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which permits acceptance by silence in certain limited circumstances, the court held that the lack of "objective manifestation of intent to accept" was not shown simply through continued use of the account. Instead, because there was nothing in the deposit agreement suggesting that silence and continued use would result in acceptance of agreement modifications and additions, the court deemed mere continued use sufficient to enforce. As with Pruett, Land suggests affirmative assent to the new terms is required unless the original agreement makes very clear that use constitutes acceptance of the original agreement and amended terms as well. Key Considerations It is of course potentially prudent for financial institutions to at least consider including an arbitration clause and class action waiver in their account agreements. However, if the institution decides to do so, it must be careful about how to accomplish the desired result, focusing as much on the rights and language of the original agreement as terms relating to acceptance contained in the disclosure associated with the amended terms. As Pruett shows, if the language in the original agreement is not sufficiently clear that the addition of new terms by amendment is allowed, the institution may have to consider publishing an entirely new deposit agreement to existing -- and not just new -- customers to increase the chances that the arbitration provision will be enforced. Furthermore, the financial institution may not be able to rely on continued use of the account to determine the existence of an added arbitration clause and associated class action waiver. While the specific facts of the Land and Pruett decisions involved credit unions, their holdings are equally applicable to commercial banks as well. Moreover, the courts' focus on the rights and language of the arbitration provisions is also a focus of federal bank regulatory agencies and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Although the CFPB's arbitration rule was overridden by Congress in 2017 under the Congressional Review Act, there has been renewed advocacy by consumer groups in recent months for the CFPB to resurrect its rule, particularly under a more consumer-friendly administration. Given the regulatory scrutiny and guidance from the courts, this is an area that financial institutions of all types and charters should take seriously, including review and possible revision of their existing arbitration clauses to ensure that they pass litigation and supervisory muster. [GN] WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Premier Lauds Stolen Wages Class Action Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Bunch, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that thousands of Indigenous workers who were paid little or no wages for almost four decades will be compensated after the West Australian government settled a class action. Premier Roger Cook says the decision recognises the injustice suffered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers and their families between 1936 and 1972 under WA laws. "We hope this agreement can contribute to healing for those impacted," he said on Wednesday. Senior Gooniyandi Elder Mervyn Street launched legal action in the Federal Court in 2020 on behalf of the surviving workers and their relatives. The WA government agreed to up to $180.4 million to eligible Aboriginal workers or their surviving spouses and children, with each claimant eligible to receive $16,500. A public acknowledgement and apology will be issued in state parliament to the surviving and deceased workers on November 28. The settlement is yet to be approved by the Federal Court, which will happen after eligible workers and their families are registered. The court will also decide the exact amount payable to each worker or their family. Mr Street intends to ask that a greater amount be paid to people who worked the longest under the legislation. Many of those were in the Kimberley region on pastoral stations and in institutions and missions. Lawyer Vicky Antzoulatos said the agreement was a victory for the workers and their descendants who suffered intergenerational disadvantage because of the laws. "It doesn't correct the past but offers a way forward," she said. "Hopefully, greater understanding of the experiences of Aboriginal people in WA during this sad earlier time in history is also a lasting legacy of this class action." [GN] WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Stolen Wages Class Action Settled for $165-MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Government of Western Australia on Nov. 1 disclosed that a settlement agreement has been reached that supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who worked in Western Australia for little or no wages between 1936 and 1972. Eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who worked in Western Australia in the period 1936 to 1972 for little or no wages will be entitled to individual payments. The WA Government will pay into an administered fund a sum of $16,500 in respect of each eligible claimant, up to a total of $165 million. This maximum total figure would only be paid if there are 10,000 or more eligible claimants. An additional sum of up to $15.4 million is set aside for the applicant's assessed legal costs. The sum to be distributed to each eligible claimant will be determined by the Federal Court and will be dependent on the number of eligible claimants and other deductions to be approved by the Federal Court. This will occur following a registration process to be led by Shine Lawyers, which the Court will be asked to approve. Those wishing to submit a claim should contact Shine Lawyers on wastolenwages@shine.com.au. More information is available here: https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-the-premier-and-cabinet/aboriginal-stolen-wages-class-action [GN] [*] Institutional Investors Join Suit to Affect Corp. Governance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Hornyak, writing for Benefits Canada, reports that while many institutional investors participate in class action lawsuits against investee companies to recover assets lost due to malfeasance, others do so to be activists, according to W. Mark McNair, a securities litigation lawyer at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. Plan sponsors that have suffered a significant loss may file a claim to signal to their stakeholders they're doing everything they can to recover assets on their behalves. But lawsuits can also be launched to affect corporate governance. "If a case is filed and there's a settlement, the dollars come first," he says. "After that is negotiated, you can try to seek some needed corporate governance changes. That's an important factor, particularly now when there are a lot of cases where there's an [environmental, social and governance] component. It's not just the money being recovered, it's also the feeling that they're making a difference." To shift the balance of power between shareholders and class action lawyers, the U.S.'s Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 encouraged institutional investors to participate as lead plaintiffs in securities class actions by allowing investors with the most substantial losses to take control over these cases. Since the passage of the PSLRA, institutional investors have relied on portfolio monitoring services offered by plaintiff class action law firms to identify loss recovery opportunities. The Harvard Law School forum on corporate governance estimates about 40 per cent of securities fraud cases have a public pension fund or labour union fund as lead plaintiff. Portfolio monitoring -- offered for free -- sees law firms watching a plan's portfolio to identify significant losses that plan sponsors may want to act on, says McNair, noting each action requires a lead plaintiff that's selected by the court at the end of the 60-day window. "To be the lead plaintiff, you have to file a motion to be the lead plaintiff. If you are selected, you're in charge of the entire litigation." Normally, the lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest loss in the case, says McNair. There are different ways losses will be calculated. Most common is calculating losses on a ‘last-in, first-out' accounting basis. In the context of securities claims, this approach calculates the plaintiff's damages by matching its last purchases during the damage period with its first sales during the period. Read: Pension plans among shareholders suing Shell board over climate strategy However, the U.S. is an opt-out system. While all claims automatically make an investor part of the class, if chosen as lead plaintiff, they can decide to opt out. "If you don't step forward to be the lead plaintiff, you're still going to get your proportionate share of recovery," says McNair. When institutional investors are involved in these cases, the recoveries tend to be larger than for individuals, he notes. "Part of that could be that institutions probably get involved in stronger cases and are somewhat more selective." While a large number of Canadian pension funds are currently being monitored, one unique aspect of these funds is many are pooled, says McNair. "If that's the case, whoever holds the equities in the pool makes the claim. However, pooled funds wouldn't be able to take a lead role in a case." There's no legal requirement for a pension fund to be monitored, he adds, and the issue of whether plans have a fiduciary duty to so do is unclear. "Some say they have a fiduciary responsibility; some people say they don't. It could be argued they have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure they recover assets lost as a result of malfeasance by a company they're invested in. But, since it's an opt-out system, they're part of the class anyway. It's not exact. "Still, it makes sense to at least know what's going on, particularly if they can do so at no cost because these monitoring programs are free." [GN] [*] Opioid-Related Law in Alberta Launched for Class Suit Process ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colette Derworiz, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the Alberta government has introduced updated legislation that it says would help make sure anyone who contributed to the opioid addiction crisis is held responsible. Dan Williams, the minister of mental health and addiction, said the proposed changes aim to strengthen the province's position in current class actions to recover opioid-related health-care costs and other damages. "We have been clear since our government was first elected in 2019 that we will hold the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and others more accountable for their part in the devastating addiction crisis and its cost on our health-care system," he said Tuesday. "I am determined to get every single red cent I can from those who are responsible for causing this crisis." In 2018, British Columbia filed a proposed class-action lawsuit on behalf of Ottawa, the provinces and territories against more than 40 opioid makers and distributors. It accuses them of downplaying the harmful effects of this group of painkillers, misrepresenting the risk of addiction and failing to mention side-effects and withdrawal symptoms. Across Canada, there were more than 38,000 suspected opioid-related deaths between January 2016 and March 2023. Some experts have argued the COVID-19 pandemic likely worsened the crisis. Several provinces and territories have passed legislation to support the class-action process, and a certification hearing for B.C.'s court action is expected in late November. The Alberta government announced in October 2019 that it would participate in the class action and passed its initial legislation that December. The amendments would make pharmaceutical consultants subject to potential legal action, clarify a definition of opioid products and amend a formula to calculate damages. Williams said the province would use any future damages to support those who are suffering from mental health challenges or for addiction recovery programs. "All the money that we recuperate from this . . . will go back to the recovery model," he said. "It will go toward expanding capacity first and foremost for treatment -- detox, recovery treatment and recovery communities." Earlier in October, the Nova Scotia government also introduced updated legislation and the Quebec government tabled an opioid-related bill similar to that of the other provinces. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 31, 2023. [GN] [*] Quebec Gov't Introduces Bill to Join Opioid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Éducaloi reports that on October 5th, the Quebec government introduced a bill to join a class action that was started in British Columbia. The lawsuit targets 40 pharmaceutical companies that allegedly concealed the harmful effects of opioids. Strength in numbers This is the first time that lawyer André Lesperance has seen all the Canadian provinces make "a joint pact" to undertake a class action. He cites the case of cigarette manufacturers as an example, where various provincial governments chose to take action individually instead of jointly. "There's strength in numbers and it saves costs," says Me Lesperance." Instead of filing ten lawsuits, you file one. It also helps create a strong impact." Me Lesperance is a member of the Trudel Johnston & Lesperance law firm (TJL), which specializes in class actions and public interest law. Their lawyers notably won the case against the tobacco industry. TJL is also leading a class action against pharmaceutical companies on behalf of Quebec victims suffering from Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), a situation that has "completely disrupted" the lives of the victims, explains Me Lesperance. Some of them have even become homeless as a result of their dependence on opioids. However, the class action filed by the Canadian provinces, which Quebec wants to join, has a different goal. It aims to offset the costs of managing the opioid crisis. A total of $85 billion is claimed from the 40 pharmaceutical companies targeted by this class action. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, 541 deaths in Quebec are linked to opioid overdose in 2022 alone. An out-of-court settlement This intergovernmental class action linked to the opioid crisis has already produced results. In June 2022, Purdue Pharma Canada reached a $150 million out-of-court settlement with all provincial and territorial governments - a first in Canada, according to the British Columbia government. Me André Lesperance believes that if the Quebec bill is passed, then TJL's class action for people suffering from OUD will also be facilitated. For the past year, TJL has been waiting for the judge's decision as to whether its class action will move forward. According to the lawyer, this decision is expected shortly. "Of the 35 manufacturers, we've settled with ten or so of them, the small players," he says. "The big players [are contesting the lawsuit]. We're waiting for the judge's decision." As for the tobacco companies, although TJL won its case, the dispute is far from settled, as the three Canadian manufacturers - Imperial Tobacco, JTI-MacDonald and Rothmans Benson & Hedges - filed for bankruptcy in 2019. A bill which might pass soon In 2018, British Columbia passed the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This act allows the province to file a class action on behalf of the federal and provincial governments. Although the Quebec bill has only just been introduced, the Quebec government explains that it has been involved in this matter on four separate occasions since 2018: * It participated in the pan-Canadian working group created to facilitate information sharing between governments on legal proceedings, * It mandated British Columbia attorneys to represent it and file a claim on its behalf in Purdue Pharma and US-based Endo's bankruptcy proceedings, * It took part in settlement negotiations with defendant companies, which notably led to a settlement with Purdue Pharma for a total of $150 million, * It took part in discussions on how best to distribute the out-of-court settlements between the different governments. The Office of the Minister responsible for Social Services hopes that the bill will pass by December. Only then will the Quebec government be able to officially join the class action in British Columbia. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***