/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231114.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, November 14, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 228
Headlines
1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Data Breach
23ANDME INC: Schutz Files Suit in N.D. California
3M COMPANY: Cordova Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Dieterich Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Doucet Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Draheim Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: McKeon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ALO MOVES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Badwal Suit Alleges
APPLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over Defective iPhone Batteries
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Indigenous Public Housing
BANANA REPUBLIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Alleges
BARCLAYS PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2
BLOOM ENERGY: IPO Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Nod
BLUE CROSS: Court Approves Insurers' $2.67B Class Suit Settlement
BOW PLUMBING: Braswell Seeks Prelim Approval of Settlement
BRAINSTORM CELL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2
BRIGHTLAND INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Knowles Says
CANADA: Sotos LLP Lawyer Comments on First Nations Settlement
CARESOURCE: Moore Data Breach Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
CARNIVAL CRUISES: Court Ruling in COVID Outbreak Handling Discussed
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Removes Berry Suit to N.D. of Illinois
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Chappel Sues Over Misused of Donated Funds
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Sued in Calif. Over Mishandling of Tithes
CLOSETS BY DESIGN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 16, 2024
COMED: Discloses Full Payment of Settlement in Lobbying Class Suit
COMED: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit in Illinois
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued in Taiwan Over Hepatitis A Virus in Berries
DELTA AIR: Fuel Dumping Class Suit to Proceed, Court Says
DISCORD INC: Faces Zarecor Class Suit Over Auto-Renewal Scheme
DOCGO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme
DOCGO INC: Naclerio Sues Over Share Price Drop
EOS ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Filing
EPIQ CORPORATE: Court Grants Final OK of Class Suit Settlement
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Sayce Suit Seeks Class Certification
FORKABLE DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Dismisses Aluminum Price Fixing Class Suit
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Hodges Claims
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE: Faces Rice Suit Over Unpaid Preshift Duties
GTS TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
GUARANTEED RATE: Former Employee Files FLSA Class Action
HALLFORDHOMES LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Mishandled Remains
HANDS OF COMPASSION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges
HOMAGE LLC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JCJOHNSON ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Douglas Alleges
KONA COFFEE: $41M+ Settlement in Coffee False Ads Granted Final OK
MCKINSEY & CO: British Columbia Gov't Can Pursue Opioid Drugs Suit
MELISSA CADDICK: Fraud Class Suit Not Connected to Audit Failures
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Suit Verdict to Hit Real Estate Agents
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Congestion Pricing Plan
NOVARTIS AG: Court Grants Approves Distribution of Settlement Funds
RALPH ROWE: Court Approves Terms of $13M Deal in Sex Assault Suit
RECKITT BENCKISER: Suboxone Consumers Received Settlement Payout
ROOSEVELT HOTEL: Martinez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
SACRAMENTO MEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonk Suit Alleges
SPEAR WILDERMAN: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $800,000
STABILITY AI: Fried Frank Law Firm Won Copyright Class Suit
STATE FARM: Data Breach Class Action Moved to Federal Court
TENNESSEE: Faces Class Suit Over Toxic Ethylene Oxide Pollution
TERRAN ORBITAL: Faces Mullen Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
THOMAS J. VILSACK: Black Farmers Seek Class Certification
TIM HORTONS: Settlement Free Items to Expire on January 31, 2025
TMC THE METALS CO: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Caper Suit
TMC THE METALS CO: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Tran Suit
TORONTO METROPOLITAN: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Semitic Events
TRI-COUNTY TELEPHONE: Class Suit Over Big Horn Basin Sale Dismissed
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over eCourts System
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit Over Data Breach Continues
UMPQUA BANK: Faces Elizondo Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach
UNITED SERVICES: Must Response to Class Cert Bid by April 30, 2024
UNITED STATES: Argueta Class Suit Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Farrell Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
VELODYNE LIDAR: Consolidated Suit Over SEC Disclosure Ongoing
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in California
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over Disclosures
VILLAS OF HOLLY BROOK: Plaintiff Has Util Nov. 16 to File Reply
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2
VIRTU FINANCIAL: City of Birmingham Sues Over Drop in Share Price
[*] Gibson Dunn Provides 3Q 2023 Update on Class Actions
*********
1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
1st Franklin Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that on May
4, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia consolidated five cases into one captioned "Morehead v.
1st Franklin Financial Corporation," Case No. 2023-CV-0038=SCJ. On
July 20, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss (or in the
alternative, stay) the consolidated case on the basis that each of
prospective class representatives expressly waived their right to
serve as class representatives and are bound to arbitrate each case
individually.
Between March and April 2023, five putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the company in said court. The complaints
generally assert claims of negligence, breach of implied contract
and, in one case, violations of the Georgia Deceptive Practices
Act, on behalf of a putative class of individuals whose personally
identifiable information was accessed in the previously disclosed
November 2022 cyber-attack on the company and related data breach.
The plaintiffs are seeking equitable and injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of monetary damages in connection with their
claims, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
1st Franklin Financial Corporation is engaged in the consumer
finance business, primarily in making consumer installment loans to
individuals including the purchase of sales finance contracts from
various dealers and the making of first and second mortgage real
estate loans on real estate.
23ANDME INC: Schutz Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 23andMe, Inc. The
case is styled as Michael Schutz, Cody Vogel, Eileen Mullen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
23andMe, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-05579-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 30,
2023).
The nature of suit is as Other Contract for Contract Dispute.
23andMe -- https://www.23andme.com/ -- offers DNA testing with the
most comprehensive ancestry breakdown, personalized health insights
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Blair Elizabeth Reed, Esq.
Matthew B. George, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (415) 772-4700
Fax: (415) 772-4707
Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
breed@kaplanfox.com
mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
3M COMPANY: Cordova Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randolph Cordova, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-05509-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 30, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to 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 to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Thyroid Disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Dieterich Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vinson Dieterich, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-05512-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 30, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to 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 to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Doucet Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Doucet, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-05513-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 30, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to 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 to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Draheim Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Draheim, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05507-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 30, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: McKeon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank McKeon, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05505-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 30, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
colorectal cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ALO MOVES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Badwal Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
BAKUL BADWAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALO MOVES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-24164-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2023) alleges Defendant's
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disclosed
to Meta Platforms, Inc. or Facebook, information which identifies
the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services from Defendant,
without the Plaintiff and the Class consent.
The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was
provided to the Defendant by Facebook. That pixel tracked the
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video viewing history while on
the Defendant's website and reported the viewing history to
Facebook along with Plaintiff's and the Class Members' unique
Facebook Identification numbers, says the suit.
ALO MOVES, INC. is an online video platform offering fitness
classes, with a focus on yoga. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
- and -
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (305) 336-7466
Email: 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
Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
APPLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over Defective iPhone Batteries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tobin, writing for Reuters, reports that Apple Inc on Nov. 1
lost a bid to block a mass London lawsuit worth up to $2 billion
which accuses the tech giant of hiding defective batteries in
millions of iPhones.
The lawsuit was brought by British consumer champion Justin Gutmann
on behalf of around 24 million iPhone users in the United Kingdom.
Gutmann is seeking damages from Apple on their behalf of up to 1.6
billion pounds ($1.9 billion) plus interest, with the claim's
midpoint range being 853 million pounds.
His lawyers argued Apple concealed issues with batteries in certain
phone models by "throttling" them with software updates and
installed a power management tool which limited performance.
Apple, however, said the lawsuit was "baseless" and strongly denied
batteries in iPhones were defective, apart from in a small number
of iPhone 6s models for which it offered free battery
replacements.
The company sought to get the case thrown out of court, but the
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) said Gutmann's case can proceed
in a written ruling on Nov. 1.
The CAT did, however, say there was "a lack of clarity and
specificity" in Gutmann's case which needed to be resolved before
any trial.
It also said Gutmann's litigation funding arrangements may need to
be changed, following a landmark Supreme Court ruling in July which
said many such agreements were unlawful.
Gutmann said in a statement that the ruling was "a major step
towards consumer justice".
An Apple spokesperson referred to a previous statement, which said:
"We have never -- and would never -- do anything to intentionally
shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user
experience to drive customer upgrades."
The certification of Gutmann's case adds to the number of
high-value mass lawsuits currently being brought in London,
following a July decision to give the go-ahead to claims against
major banks for alleged foreign exchange rigging. [GN]
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Indigenous Public Housing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Bunch, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that
thousands of Indigenous tenants living in "substandard" public
housing in remote West Australian communities could be financially
compensated.
Lawyers are exploring the potential for a class action that could
also seek to have the dilapidated homes repaired and improved.
"Site visits to several remote communities have confirmed tenants
have been living in substandard housing," Gemma Leigh-Dodds of law
firm Slater and Gordon said on Nov. 2.
Investigators found houses that lacked safe drinking water and
working showers, toilets and cooking facilities.
Others had broken windows, blocked pipes, security issues, and many
had no air-conditioning.
Tenants' repeated requests for repairs were also often ignored.
Premier Roger Cook said many remote communities were "challenging"
and did not meet the standards most people would expect.
"This has taken place over many years, and we've all seen sometimes
the displays of poverty and the damage associated with that in all
these communities," he said.
He said the Labor government had invested more than $350 million in
remote communities to improve housing and utilities in recent
years.
"That's a tough job and it's a very complex one in very difficult
circumstances," he said.
"But we need to continue to do more to make sure that we provide
appropriate standards of living for the people in those important
towns".
Ms Leigh-Dodds said Aboriginal tenants were entitled to
significantly better treatment and might be entitled to
compensation under Australian law.
"Public housing lessors hold a contractual relationship with
thousands of tenants living in remote communities pursuant to
tenancy agreements for receipt of public housing," she said.
"Those contracts provide express conditions that the landlord
provide tenants with housing in a reasonably secure and comfortable
state of repair, including in compliance with health and safety
laws."
The proposed claim could provide redress for alleged breaches of
contract, including repayment of rent where the property was not
reasonably comfortable or safe.
Claimants may also seek damages for the inconvenience experienced
while dealing with housing issues, any money spent rectifying
housing problems, and the disappointment and distress caused by the
defects.
More than 20,000 people and more than 4000 households are in remote
communities in WA, according to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics.
Several thousand are expected to join the claim.
The class action could also investigate whether participants are
entitled to make secondary claims under Australian Consumer Law and
the Racial Discrimination Act for offering a disadvantageous
service on the basis of race.
"This is not the first time that Australia's substandard public
housing in Aboriginal communities has drawn attention," Ms
Leigh-Dodds said.
"In 2005, a report released by the United Nations Housing Rights
Programme specifically identified Australia as a case study to
consider the disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal people.
The UN Report found poor living conditions, chronic overcrowding
and poor access to basic services, such as water and electricity.
"The fact that nothing has been done in almost 20 years to improve
conditions for Aboriginal people in remote public housing is
shameful," Ms Leigh-Dodds said.
"For too long Aboriginal people living in remote communities have
been expected to put up and shut up in relation to their housing
rights."
The proposed action comes a day after the High Court ruled
Indigenous tenants living in poor-quality housing in the Northern
Territory were entitled to compensation.
More than 70 public housing tenants in Ltyentye Apurte (Santa
Teresa), 85km southeast of Alice Springs, brought claims for a
range of issues, including leaking sewage, unstable electricity and
no air conditioning. [GN]
BANANA REPUBLIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DAVIS; JONELLE HARRIS; and SANDRO THOMASSINI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC; OLD NAVY, LLC; and ATHLETA, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 617650/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Oct. 30, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as manual workers.
BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC retails apparel and various accessories. The
Company provides a range of products, including denim, khakis,
t-shirts, fashion apparel, winter wear, shoes, bags, belts,
accessories, jewelry, intimate apparel, and personal care products
for men, women, teens, and children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
BARCLAYS PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 1
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Barclays PLC (NYSE: BCS) (OTC:
BCLYF) between July 22, 2019 and October 12, 2023, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Barclays investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Barclays class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19796 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Contrary to his false public assertions, Jes
Staley had a very close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein; (2)
Staley was reportedly aware of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal
activities and may have even sexually assaulted a victim who had
previously been trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein; (3) Staley's close,
personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and potential criminal
activity, if discovered, could bring reputational, legal, and
financial harm to Barclays; (4) as a result, Barclays response to
the FCA's inquiry regarding Staley's relationship with Epstein was
materially false; (5) Barclays, having become aware of information
contradicting its response to the FCA's inquiry, then failed to
update the response so that it would be accurate, or otherwise take
any meaningful action; and (6) that as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19796 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BLOOM ENERGY: IPO Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Bloom Energy
Corp., its leadership, and underwriters will pay $3 million to
settle allegations that the company made misleading statements
related to its initial public offering, according to a federal
judge's order granting preliminary approval of the deal.
The settlement would benefit a class of investors who acquired
shares of Bloom Energy stock between the company's July 25, 2018
IPO and March 31, 2020, according to the order filed on Oct. 31 is
US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Bloom, its officers, and directors, as well as its underwriters and
auditors, had allegedly misrepresented or omitted key information
in the IPO registration statement, the shareholders said in their
suit filed May 2019.
The underwriters for the IPO were J.P Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Credit Suisse Securities LLC, KeyBanc Capital
Markets Inc., Cowen and Company LLC, HSBC Securities Inc,
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates Inc., Robert W.
Baird & Co. Inc., and Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
Those defendants are also included in the settlement.
The San Jose, Calif., company concealed that it was facing
significant construction delays that interfered with installations,
as well as issues regarding the efficiency of its energy server
technology, and defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act,
the plaintiffs alleged on behalf of the investor class.
Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr.preliminarily approved the deal after more
than three years of litigation, during which he trimmed the
allegations by partially granting three separate motions to
dismiss. Bloom's independent auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
exited the case after he granted its motion to dismiss on Sept. 29,
2021.
Mediation began in December 2022, and the parties agreed to a
settlement proposal in June 2023, which includes the $3 million
payment to all investors with shares traceable to the Bloom IPO
registration statement or acquired on the open market during the
nearly two-year class period.
The deal releases all demands and liabilities against defendants,
who did not concede any wrongdoing in the settlement proposal.
The plaintiffs anticipate mailing notice of the settlement to
approximately 100,000 potential class members, according to the
order.
The court appointed Levi & Korsinsky LLP as class counsel, and the
lawyers can apply for attorneys' fees up to $990,000, or 33% of the
total monetary settlement amount, the order says. The lawyers for
plaintiffs at that firm and Hagens Beman Sobol Shapiro LLP didn't
immediately respond to requests for comment.
Gilliam gave the parties seven days to meet and agree upon a
schedule of dates to notify class members, file further motions,
and hold final hearings on the settlement.
Bloom and its lawyers at Sidley Austin LLP didn't immediately
respond to a request for comment.
Oppenheimer & Co. and KeyBanc spokespeople declined to comment. All
other underwriter defendants and their lawyers at Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case is Hunt v. Bloom Energy Corp., N.D. Cal., No.
4:19-cv-02935, 10/31/23. [GN]
BLUE CROSS: Court Approves Insurers' $2.67B Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Sean P. McConnell of DuaneMorris.com
report that on October 25, 2023, in the litigation of In Re Blue
Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2406 (11th Cir.
Oct. 25, 2023), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's order giving
approval to the Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers' $2.67 billion
class action settlement resolving allegations of antitrust
violations and other anti-competitive practices. The settlement,
which was reached nearly three years ago, involved Blue Cross Blue
Shield agreeing to a multi-billion dollar settlement fund and
incorporating various reforms to resolve alleged anti-competitive
business practices to harm competition. The Eleventh Circuit
rejected various objections from corporate and individual
objectors, including arguments that the settlement release would
frustrate national employers from participating in the settlement
and/or from making similar claims in the future, that the district
court failed to scrutinize the allocation of the settlement
proceeds among plaintiffs, and issues with the attorneys' fees
awarded. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement.
The affirmation of the district court's settlement approval in Blue
Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation is required reading for any
corporate counsel considering settlement of antitrust class action
litigation.
Case Background
The underlying multidistrict litigation began in 2012 when
subscribers alleged that Blue Cross Blue Shield and member plans
engaged in an anti-competitive market allocation and
exclusive-dealing scheme to harm competition. The Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association is a national insurance company. It owns and
licenses its federal trademarks to local member plans and
affiliated entities. According to the underlying complaint,
subscribers who bought health insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield
alleged that Blue Cross Blue Shield allocated geographic
territories, limited member plans' competition by mandating a
minimum percentage of business under the Blue Cross brand for each
member doing business inside and outside their territories,
restricted the right of member plans to be sold to companies
outside the Association, and agreed to other ancillary restraints
on competition. There was a separate track of litigation for claims
brought by providers, but the case at bar does not involve that
track. After the district court granted partial summary judgment
for the subscribers in 2018, the parties reached a class action
settlement that divided the subscriber-track plaintiffs into two
groups: (i) a monetary damages class and (ii) an injunctive relief
class.
Settlement Affirmed
Several parties appealed the district court's approval of the class
action settlement. Home Depot argued that the settlement release
would, among other things, frustrate enforcement of the federal
antitrust laws. The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument because
"[p]rivate enforcement is only one mechanism by which federal
antitrust laws may be vindicated." Id. at 13. The Eleventh Circuit
noted that the "government may also enforce the antitrust laws
against companies like Blue Cross" and intimated that DOJ or state
attorneys general could investigate and bring claims against Blue
Cross for anticompetitive conduct. Id. at 13-15. With respect to
argument about the apportionment of settlement funds, the Eleventh
Circuit opined that federal laws require "equity, not equality."
Id. at 25. It therefore concluded that the approval of the
class-wide settlement, though facially unequal, was not unfair and
not an abuse of discretion.
Implications for Defendants in Class Actions
In Re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation is one of the
most significant antitrust class actions in recent years, and is
arguably a historic resolution in terms of industry practices. From
the early stages of the action, a court-appointed settlement master
helped the parties in settlement negotiations, and the Eleventh
Circuit referred to the settlement master's view that the
settlement at issue was reasonable. [GN]
BOW PLUMBING: Braswell Seeks Prelim Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSELYN BRASWELL, et al.,
v. BOW PLUMBING GROUP INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00025-ECM-KFP (M.D.
Ala.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:
-- preliminarily approving the Settlement;
-- certifying the Settlement Class;
-- providing for issuance of notice to the Settlement Class, and
-- scheduling a final-fairness hearing.
BOW offers plastic pipe, fittings, drainage, and pressure plumbing
products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mn3OcL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kirby D. Farris, Esq.
Kenneth E. Riley, Esq.
Calle M. Mendenhall, Esq.
Malia D. Tartt, Esq.
FARRIS, RILEY & PITT, LLP
The Gray Building
1728 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 324-1212
Facsimile: (205) 324-1255
E-mail: kfarris@frplegal.com
kriley@frplegal.com
cmedenhall@frplegal.com
mtartt@frplegal.com
BRAINSTORM CELL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 1
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.
(NASDAQ: BCLI) between August 15, 2022 and September 27, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Brainstorm Cell investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Brainstorm Cell class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19375 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Brainstorm Cell downplayed the severity of the
Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") refusal to file letter; (2)
Brainstorm Cell continued to conceal the risks associated with the
submission of the biologics license application ("BLA"); and (3) as
a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19375 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BRIGHTLAND INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Knowles Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHTLAND INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-09499-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023) alleges Defendant's
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://brightland.co/, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
BRIGHTLAND INCORPORATED manufactures and sell products online
including olive oils, vinegar, and honey are available. Their
products include fruit-forward vinegar and extra virgin olive oils.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
CANADA: Sotos LLP Lawyer Comments on First Nations Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the Federal
Court of Canada's approval of the $23.34-billion First Nations
child and family services settlement agreement illustrates that if
the government decides to fund public services in a manner that
creates substantive inequality, then the courts and human rights
tribunal will provide a remedy, says David Sterns, a lawyer at
Sotos LLP who represented the plaintiffs.
The agreement compensates Indigenous children and families for the
discriminatory underfunding of the First Nations Child foster care
system and other family services. The settlement is the largest in
Canadian history. It follows a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
ruling in 2019, which ordered the federal government to pay $40,000
to each affected child and family member -- the maximum penalty for
discrimination.
"It's a historic day for First Nations children and their
families," says Sterns. "It's been a long, drawn-out proceeding.
We're now starting the final chapter, which is getting much-needed
compensation into the hands of the youth and the families who
suffered under a discriminatory system… There's a lot of work
ahead."
He says the next stage is an essential part of the class-action
process. Sterns and his colleagues must devise a method of
distributing $23.34 billion to 300,000 people. He says the method
must be culturally appropriate, non-invasive, trauma-informed, and
include sufficient safeguards so the money flows to the right
people. They are working with the administrator, Deloitte, a team
of navigators, and other experts on the distribution process.
"The work doesn't end when you have a settlement approved.
Actually, sometimes the hard work begins."
Along with Sotos, the law firms Kugler Kandestin and Miller Titerle
+ Co were also on the case. They are also working with Nahwegahbow
Corbiere, Fasken, and in-house counsel at the Assembly of First
Nations, including Stuart Wuttke.
The case began in 2007 when the First Nations Child and Family
Caring Society of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations brought
an application to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The
applicants argued that the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada's First Nations Child and Family Services
Program discriminated against Indigenous children and families
based on race and/or national or ethnic origin by insufficiently
funding those services on reserve and in the Yukon.
"The way that they were discriminating was that they were
prioritizing the removal of children whenever there were problems
within the household of those families living on reserve," says
Sterns.
Instead of directing funding toward helping families stop the
neglect that was found, he says, the First Nations Child and Family
Services Program frequently removed children, placed them in foster
care, and the foster family received the funding to provide
services to the child.
"That set up a perverse incentive for the welfare agencies to
remove the child because that was the only real tool in their
toolkit. There was no money for prevention and for supports."
Sterns says this dynamic led to an epidemic of Indigenous children
being moved off reserve to the extent that it impacted almost every
family. "It has contributed to the depopulation of reserves. It's
contributed to the loss of culture. It's contributed to the
breakdowns of families," he says.
The tribunal ruled in the applicants' favour in 2016, and a funding
decision in 2019 awarded the maximum available under the Human
Rights Act. The decision only covered class members affected in
2006 and after, so a second class action was launched to cover
those impacted as far back as 1991.
In the second class action, the plaintiffs sought compensation on
the same $40,000 basis and argued for enhanced payments for those
who had suffered more significant harms, says Sterns.
"This is an important case of Charter rights and remedies." He says
it recognizes that funding decisions, which have traditionally been
viewed as within the exclusive prerogative of Parliament, are
subject to human rights or Charter scrutiny. Sterns adds that the
case has also led to behaviour modification because the system is
being "dramatically reformed."
"It's going to result in food on the table and shelter over the
heads of a lot of people who are living in extreme poverty.
"That's what this system has created," he says. "That is why there
are so many homeless First Nations children. To a large degree,
it's the result of a child welfare system that tore them away from
their families." [GN]
CARESOURCE: Moore Data Breach Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as ESTHER MOORE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARESOURCE, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00293, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 27,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-12574 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold CareSource responsible for the injuries
inflicted on Plaintiff and approximately 3,180,5371 similarly
situated persons due to CareSource's impermissibly inadequate data
security, which caused the personal information of Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access
by cybercriminals on May 31, 2023. Through this action, Plaintiff
seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals whose PII and PHI were exfiltrated
and compromised in the data breach.
CareSource provides public health care programs including Medicaid,
Medicare, and Marketplace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-1851
Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
CARNIVAL CRUISES: Court Ruling in COVID Outbreak Handling Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Hickey of Sydney Criminal Lawyers, in an article for Mondaq,
disclosed that the Federal Court of Australia has ruled in favour
of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit brought against
Carnival Cruises over its negligent handling of the Covid-19
outbreak aboard the Ruby Princess which docked in Sydney Harbour on
8 March 2020.
On 19 March 2020 after being given the all-clear by New South Wales
health officials, the company allowed all of its 2700 passengers to
disembark, despite 602 of them being positive for Covid.
That act unleashed the virus across New South Wales and beyond - 28
of the passengers died from the disease and it is estimated the
conduct is responsible for 10% of all Covid deaths.
The New South Wales government later launched a Special Commission
of Inquiry which released a scathing report labelling the conduct
of state health officials as 'inexcusable' and 'inexplicable',
finding 'serious mistakes' were made by bureaucrats who approved
full disembarkation without checks or scrutiny.
Despite calls for health officials to be prosecuted for the offence
of criminal negligence or at least suspended if not terminated from
their positions, none were ever held accountable and those affected
resorted to filing a class action against the owner of the cruise
line company.
The ruling
Justice Stewart of the Federal Court delivered a lengthy judgment
in the matter of Karpik v Carnival plc (The Ruby Princess) (Initial
Trial) [2023] FCA 1280 on 25 October 2023 -- which is known as
'representative proceedings' and was brought by one plaintiff on
behalf of more than 800 others.
The case is colloquially known as the Ruby Princess class action.
The lead plaintiff in the case, Susan Karpik, contracted Covid on
board Ruby Princess and suffered distress and disappointment as a
result of the trip.
She made several claims against Carnival Cruises, the most
significant of them being that the company:
-- made misleading representations to consumers that they would
have a 'safe, relaxing and pleasurable' 11-day round trip to New
Zealand when they knew coronavirus outbreaks had been experienced
shortly beforehand on vessels it operated,
-- was negligent by commencing the trip in circumstances where,
again, it was aware coronavirus outbreaks had previously been
experienced, and
-- was negligent by failing to take adequate safeguards to ensure
that passengers aboard the vessel were safe.
The court ultimately found each of the above claims to be proven.
The primary reason for the findings relating to misleading
representations and negligence in commencing the trip was that
Carnival vessels had already experienced outbreaks on the Diamond
Princess in Japan, the Grand Princess of California, and an
outbreak occurred on the Ruby Princess in the immediate past voyage
prior to the cruise that disembarked in Sydney.
His Honour found that the cruise line's communications with
passengers prior to departing reassured them it would be safe --
which was misleading in the circumstances.
He further found that the trip "carried a significant risk . . .
and yet they proceeded regardless" -- which amounted to a breach of
the cruise company's duty of care to passengers.
He said Carnival should have warned passengers about the heightened
risk, and implemented screening and physical distancing, along with
having a plan for appropriately isolating passengers who felt ill.
The failure to do the latter made out the third mentioned claim.
No damages for personal injury
However, the court did not award the lead plaintiff personal
damages over the fact she contracted Covid on board, nor for the
fact she had suffered distress and disappointment due to the
operator's actions.
Susan Karpik had sought $360,000 for that claim, but his Honour
found her Covid symptoms were mild and her injuries did not reach
the required threshold for such a claim. This was despite the fact
she passed the disease on to her husband who spent two months in
hospital as a result.
His Honour further noted the company had already refunded her the
$4,400 she had paid for the trip.
800 passengers represented
Representative proceedings, which are also known as class actions,
require the participation of at least seven people who have legal
issues in common.
They are often led by just one plaintiff and can thereby save
courts an enormous amount of time by not having to deal with
several or even hundreds of separate cases.
The success of the lead plaintiff will determine the orders made in
respect of the group.
The Federal Court will make orders in relation to damages in the
Ruby Princess class action later this year.
No criminal negligence charges
Then New South Wales Police Commissioner launched a criminal
investigation into the Ruby Princess case in April 2020.
As stated, New South Wales health officials approved the free
disembarkation of around 2700 passengers into Sydney in March 2020,
despite many being transported to hospital with Covid-19 like
symptoms and others also displaying symptoms of the disease.
State and Federal Government bodies blame-shifted in the weeks
following the docking of the cruise ship, when it became very clear
that Ruby Princess passengers had unleashed Covid-19 not just into
New South Wales, but other states too.
Once disembarking from the cruise ship, passengers were free to
travel around New South Wales, or to other states domestically as
they made their way home.
At the time, the Police Chief Mick Fuller promised an investigation
into whether state or federal biosecurity laws were broken.
However, nothing more has ever been reported of the investigation,
and no one has been brought to account let alone prosecuted for a
criminal offence such as criminal negligence, which is a crime
under section 54 of the Crimes Act 1900 carrying a maximum penalty
of 2 years in prison.
Mick Fuller resigned from the New South Wales Police Force in
2022.
The subsequent investigations
Two subsequent government initiated investigations at a federal and
state level were subsequently undertaken and identified critical
errors and a 'gaping hole' in the biosecurity network.
The Federal Report by the Commonwealth's Inspector-General of
Biosecurity found the Department of Agriculture made a number of
crucial errors, including failing to follow protocols or to
interview sick passengers, including giving travellers an "illness
checklist" and that Australian authorities failed to interview the
ship's master or inspect the vessel's medical logs.
The New South Wales Government inquiry found that state health
officials made "inexcusable", "inexplicable" errors in the way the
Ruby Princess was handled, specifically by assessing the ship
passengers as "low risk", and making the decision to "do nothing"
despite all the expert advice at hand.
The State-led inquiry came to the same conclusions as the Federal
investigation, that Department of Agriculture officers did not
follow proper processes when inspecting the Ruby Princess,
neglecting to complete health checklists as required by a national
protocol.
It also found that the decision to let passengers disembark and
travel onwards both domestically and internationally also defied a
Public Health Order that was in force at the time, requiring
passengers entering NSW from any other country to self-isolate in
suitable accommodation for 14 days. [GN]
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Removes Berry Suit to N.D. of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of YOLANDA BERRY; and KENNETHIA HOWLEIT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of
Illinois, County of Cook (Case No. 2023-CH-07795) to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 30,
2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-15482.
CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY is based in the City of Chicago in the
State of Illinois. The Authority was formed to consolidate
Chicago's public and private mass transit carriers.
The Defendant is represented by:
John F. Kennedy, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Babbitt, Esq.
Nicollette L. Khuans, Esq.
Gabrielle N. Ganze, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
111 E. Wacker Drive Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 527-4000
Email: ebabbitt@taftlaw.com
jkennedy@taftlaw.com
nkhuans@taftlaw.com
gganze@taftlaw.com
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Chappel Sues Over Misused of Donated Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CHAPPELL; MASEN CHRISTENSEN; and JOHN OAKS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS; and ENSIGN PEAK ADVISORS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00794-TS (D. Utah, Oct. 31, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants misrepresent their use of funds, including concealing
their illegal scheme to hide their assets using shell companies.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, despite the
representations to donors, the Defendants deliberately hid that
some, if not all, of the donations, including both tithes and
donations made to the Defendants are permanently invested in
accounts it never uses for any charitable work, so that every year,
an enormous portion of the donations are never spent for these --
or any -- purposes.
Because the Defendants engaged in a scheme to solicit funds from
donors for specific purposes, but actually used those funds for
different purposes, and hid their actual use of funds from donors,
the Plaintiffs are entitled to money damages and injunctive relief
under Utah law, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of a Class of other people who made
donations to the Defendants its charitable arms, now ask the Court
to determine that the Defendants has breached the fiduciary and
other duties it owed donors in its solicitation, collection, use,
and disposition of these charitable donations.
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS is a religious corporation that exists to conduct
temporal and legal affairs on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints, an unincorporated religious association.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Magleby, Esq.
Yevgen Kovalov, Esq.
MAGLEBY CATAXINOS &
GREENWOOD, PC
141 W. Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-3605
Telephone: (801) 359-9000
Email: magleby@mcg.law
kovalov@mcg.law
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Sued in Calif. Over Mishandling of Tithes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mead Gruver, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal lawsuit filed on Oct. 31 alleges an investment arm of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints misused hundreds of
thousands of dollars donated by three men by investing the money
instead of using it for charitable purposes as they assert was
promised.
The legal action brings more scrutiny about how the Utah-based
faith handles its vast financial holdings bolstered by tithing from
by members who contribute 10% of their income. The church doesn't
publicly disclose details about its finances.
This new lawsuit filed against the business and investment entities
under the church in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City is
similar to one filed in federal court in California by James
Huntsman, brother of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., that
recently scored a partial success on appeal and remains pending.
That lawsuit seeks the return of $5 million James Huntsman donated
before he left the church.
In February, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fined the
church and its investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, a total of $5
million for using shell companies to obscure the size of the
investment portfolio under church control. The church agreed to pay
$1 million and Ensign Peak $4 million.
Church officials did not immediately respond for comment on the
latest lawsuit.
The global faith of 17 million members has previously defended how
it handles member contributions, calling Huntsman's claims baseless
while asserting that contributions go to a variety of religious
purposes including missionary work, education, humanitarian causes
and construction of churches, temples and other buildings important
to church work.
At issue in both lawsuits is whether the church's investments in
stocks, bonds, real estate and agriculture reflect the wishes of
its donors.
The church's corporate arm, the Corporation of the President of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also solicits
philanthropic donations for humanitarian relief with promises that
all of those donations are used to help those in need. But those
promises, the latest lawsuit argues, are untrue.
Instead, the church allegedly hid the fact that some if not all
donations are permanently invested in accounts never used for
charitable work. That includes tithes; regular donations amounting
to 10% of a person's income expected from members. The money
instead has gone to Ensign Peak Advisors, a nonprofit created in
1997 that has grown, the lawsuit alleges, to over $100 billion in
value.
The lawsuit was filed by Daniel Chappell, of Virginia, and Masen
Christensen and John Oaks, both of Utah. They argue the three of
them combined have donated about $350,000 to the church over the
past decade. Their lawsuit seeks class-action certification,
potentially involving millions of church members, and an
independent entity to oversee collection and use of church
donations.
Like the legal action filed by Huntsman, the lawsuit filed by the
three men leans on allegations by whistleblower David Nielsen, a
former Ensign Peak investment manager who this year submitted a
90-page memorandum to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee demanding a
congressional investigation into the church's finances.
Ensign Peak has spent funds only twice in its 26-year history,
according to both lawsuits. In 2009, Ensign Peak spent $600 million
to bail out Beneficial Life, a failing church-owned, for-profit
insurance company. From 2010 to 2014, it put $1.4 billion toward
building the City Creek Center mall near Temple Square in downtown
Salt Lake City.
A judge ruled in favor of the church in Huntsman's case but in
August the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in part and sent
the case back to district court for further proceedings. The church
has filed for a rehearing in the appeals court, saying the church
president had explained the project would be paid for through
investment earnings and not tithing funds.
Editor's note • James Huntsman is a brother of Paul Huntsman,
chairman of the nonprofit Salt Lake Tribune's board of directors.
[GN]
CLOSETS BY DESIGN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 16, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORLIS VERNON, v. CLOSETS
BY DESIGN INC. and CBD FRANCHISING, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-01180-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal N. Whitehead
entered an order setting the following deadlines:
Event Date
Deadline for joining additional March 6, 2024
parties
Deadline to amend pleadings March 6, 2024
Affirmative class certification June 7, 2024
expert disclosures
Rebuttal class certification expert June 21, 2024
disclosures
Completion of depositions of class July 19, 2024
certification experts
Deadline to file Motion for class Aug. 16, 2024
certification
Deadline to file Opposition to Sept. 16, 2024
motion for class certification
Deadline to file Reply to motion Oct. 16, 2024
for class certification
Hearing on class certification To be announced
Closets provides home closets, garages, home offices, wall beds,
media centers, laundry rooms, pantries, and hobby room products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SvMXYS at no extra charge.[CC]
COMED: Discloses Full Payment of Settlement in Lobbying Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Edison Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
lobbying class suit settlement is fully paid and fully covered by
insurance.
A putative class action lawsuit against Exelon and certain officers
of Exelon and ComEd was filed in federal court in December 2019
alleging misrepresentations and omissions in Exelon's SEC filings
related to ComEd's lobbying activities and the related
investigations.
The complaint was amended on September 16, 2020, to dismiss two of
the original defendants and add other defendants, including ComEd.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in November 2020.
The court denied the motion in April 2021.
On May 26, 2021, defendants moved the court to certify its order
denying the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal.
Briefing on the motion was completed in June 2021, and that motion
was denied on January 28, 2022.
In May 2021, the parties each filed respective initial discovery
disclosures.
On June 9, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative
defenses to the complaint and the parties engaged thereafter in
discovery.
On September 9, 2021, the U.S. government moved to intervene in the
lawsuit and stay discovery until the parties entered into an
amendment to their protective order that would prohibit the parties
from requesting discovery into certain matters, including
communications with the U.S. government.
The court ordered said amendment to the protective order on
November 15, 2021 and discovery resumed.
The court further amended the protective order on October 17, 2022
and extended it until May 15, 2023.
Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement of the
lawsuit, under which defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs $173
million.
On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement, which the court granted on June 9, 2023.
The court granted final settlement approval on September 7, 2023.
The settlement was fully covered by insurance and has been paid in
full.
Commonwealth Edison is a public utility that has control of the
delivery of electricity to all residential, business and
governmental customers across Northern Illinois. Gress alleges
that
Commonwealth Edison hired connected "lobbyists" at the behest of
Michael J. Madigan, the Speaker of the Illinois House of
Representatives and an elected member of that body, paying bribes
in various forms to induce the Illinois General Assembly to
approve
various legislative initiatives that artificially increased
electricity rates. [BN]
COMED: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Edison Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company and Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the deceptive business
practices-related class suit in Lake County, Illinois Circuit
Court.
On November 3, 2022, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in Lake County, Illinois Circuit Court against ComEd and
Exelon for unjust enrichment and deceptive business practices in
connection with the conduct giving rise to the DPA.
Plaintiff seeks an accounting and disgorgement of any benefits
ComEd allegedly obtained from said conduct.
Plaintiff served initial discovery requests on ComEd in December
2022, to which ComEd has responded.
ComEd and Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on
February 3, 2023.
On June 16, 2023, the court granted Exelon and ComEd's motion to
dismiss the action with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of that dismissal on July 17,
2023.
Plaintiff's opening appellate brief was filed on October 19, 2023.
Commonwealth Edison is a public utility that has control of the
delivery of electricity to all residential, business and
governmental customers across Northern Illinois. Gress alleges
that
Commonwealth Edison hired connected "lobbyists" at the behest of
Michael J. Madigan, the Speaker of the Illinois House of
Representatives and an elected member of that body, paying bribes
in various forms to induce the Illinois General Assembly to
approve
various legislative initiatives that artificially increased
electricity rates. [BN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued in Taiwan Over Hepatitis A Virus in Berries
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hsieh Hsing-en and Evelyn Yang of Focus Taiwan report that Taiwan's
Consumer's Foundation filed a class-action suit against Costco
Taiwan on October 24, 2023 on behalf of 135 consumers who bought
the company's imported berries that were found to have traces of
the hepatitis A virus earlier this year.
The foundation said in a statement it was asking Costco to pay
affected consumers a total of NT$11.07 million (US$340,000), or an
average of NT$82,000 per consumer, in compensation for not taking
precautionary measures in line with the Act Governing Food Safety
and Sanitation.
When Costco was first informed in March that American consumers had
tested positive for hepatitis A, likely due to eating the store's
frozen berries, it did not actively inspect its inventory of the
product or recall the berries as a precaution, the foundation
argued.
Instead, Costco only removed the products from its shelves at the
end of April after Taiwan's Food and Drug Administration ordered
local public health agencies to monitor the company, the foundation
said.
Earlier in the month on April 10, the imported berries had tested
positive for the virus in Taiwan during a border inspection, and
Costco Taiwan had received word of the positive test the same day,
but no action was taken then.
The foundation said companies should take responsibility when
incidents happen by proactively recalling their products and
providing compensation to affected consumers.
It did not say if any of the 135 consumers in the suit had come
down with hepatitis A after eating the berries. [GN]
DELTA AIR: Fuel Dumping Class Suit to Proceed, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins of Bloomberg Law reports that Delta Air Lines Inc.
lost its bid to get an early win in a case alleging that one of its
jets dumped 15,000 gallons of fuel on Los Angeles area homes, after
a federal judge found that there are triable factual issues with
the claims.
"There is a genuine issue of fact was to whether Delta violated the
applicable federal standard of care," Judge John A. Kronstadt of
the US District Court for the Central District of California said.
The case stems from a January 2020 flight to Shanghai that
experienced an engine failure shortly after it departed Los
Angeles. [GN]
DISCORD INC: Faces Zarecor Class Suit Over Auto-Renewal Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Instant messaging
and Voice over Internet Protocol platform Discord continues to bill
for Discord Nitro services -- which offers additional features --
for months after canceling a user's Discord account, a new class
action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Zhea Zhea Zaracor claims Discord "systematically
violates" automatic renewal laws by allegedly "exploiting" its
members by continuing to charge Discord Nitro fees without consent
after a user's account has been canceled.
"Defendant is well aware that it cancels the accounts of Discord
Nitro subscribers, and then continues to charge consumers for paid
subscriptions after its cancellation," the Discord class action
states.
Zaracor wants to represent a nationwide class and Texas subclass of
individuals who had their Discord Nitro services canceled by
Discord and were subsequently charged by the platform.
Discord continued to charge for Nitro services after canceling the
account of 10-year-old user, says class action
Zaracor argues Discord terminated the account of her 10-year-old
son in December 2020 after the platform determined he did not meet
its minimum age requirement of 13.
Despite this, Zaracor claims Discord continued to bill her from
January 2021 through February 2022 for a Discord Nitro subscription
that was purchased by her son.
Zaracor claims Discord is guilty of unjust enrichment and of
violating Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act,
and California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act
and Unfair Competition Law.
The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory
and injunctive relief along with an award of actual and statutory
damages for herself and all class members.
In other news involving the platform, Discord.io, an independent
custom invite service for Discord, announced in August that it
would be shutting down its services "for the foreseeable future"
following a data breach that compromised the information of 760,000
of its members.
Have you been charged for a Discord Nitro subscription after your
Discord account was canceled? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey D. Kaliel and Sophia G.
Gold of KalielGold PLLC and Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A.
The Discord auto renewal class action lawsuit is Zarecor, et al. v.
Discord Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-05385, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. [GN]
DOCGO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme
--------------------------------------------------
Joshua Solomon of Times Union reports that investors have filed a
class-action lawsuit against DocGo after the mobile health care
company's stock tumbled following reports of government
investigations into its handling of a $432 million migrant services
contract and the resignation of its CEO, which was prompted by an
admission he lied about his professional biography.
The plaintiffs, investors in the company from November 2022 to
September, are seeking to recoup their financial losses on DocGo's
stock. The lawsuit details news reports that coincided with the
company's declining value, with its most substantial loss following
a Times Union story revealing that the company's CEO, Anthony
Capone, falsified his professional biography and repeatedly lied
about details on his resume. Following the newspaper's report,
Capone resigned.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York on October 27, 2023.
Capone took over as CEO on Nov. 8, 2022 and resigned on Sept. 15.
He stepped down after New York City Comptroller Brad Lander
announced his office would conduct an atypical "real-time audit" of
the company's $432 million contract. As the controversies mounted,
DocGo's stock fell by more than a third of its value, or more than
$3 per share.
The contract with New York City's Department of Housing
Preservation and Development has led to DocGo overseeing the care
of thousands of migrants, about half of whom are scattered
throughout hotels upstate.
DocGo is required to provide housing, casework, food, access to
medical care, security and other services typically offered at a
homeless shelter. New York City is required by a 1981 consent
decree to provide shelter to anyone in the city in need of those
services.
DocGo, a mobile health care company that had provided New York City
with assistance in distributing COVID-19 tests and vaccines, has
not previously provided wide scale humanitarian shelter services.
The lawsuit was filed by the law firms Pomertantz LLP, of
Manhattan, and Portnoy Law Firm, of California. Both firms
previously issued news releases announcing they were investigating
filing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of what they said were
investors wronged by DocGo.
The lead plaintiff is Joe Naclerio, who possessed 500 shares of
DocGo that were purchased between November 2022 and March. The
lawsuit alleges there may be hundreds of thousands of other
investors who have been financially harmed and would qualify to
have their interests represented in the class-action case.
The lawsuit alleges DocGo senior leadership had "knowledge of the
details of DocGo's internal affairs." The defendants had "both the
motive and opportunity to commit fraud," according to the
complaint.
"They also had actual knowledge of the misleading nature of the
statements they made, or acted in reckless disregard of the true
information known to them at the time," the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit details multiple reports from the Times Union, along
with a report from the New York Times and actions initiated by the
New York City comptroller and state Attorney General Letitia
James.
Last month, the Times Union reported that the company's CEO had not
attended the graduate university he stated he went to or earned a
master's degree, as he told investors. The institution where he
previously said he earned his undergraduate degree also could not
confirm he graduated from there, although Capone said he does have
a degree from an accredited university.
Capone told investors at an August conference about his alleged
graduate degree in artificial intelligence when discussing his
prior role as the company's chief technology officer. He had touted
how DocGo's artificial intelligence technology set it apart from
its peers.
"I've been with the company since pretty much the beginning,"
Capone said at the Aug. 9 conference. "But the most important thing
to understand is why all of that works -- why we can scale so
rapidly, 30, 40 percent growth year-over-year, why we can deliver
care to some of the most difficult, challenged populations, why we
can do so with a high degrees of efficiency and generating good
returns for the investors that have taken risks on DocGo is because
of our technology."
"And that's where I really came in originally," Capone continued.
"We started the company, I was our chief technology officer. My
graduate degree is in computational learning theory, which is a
subset of artificial intelligence."
Capone's comments at the conference included other
misrepresentations, which the newspaper previously reported.
Despite his assertion the company was bidding for a $4 billion
contract for medical services at the southern border, multiple
sources familiar with the contract, including a spokeswoman for the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said the contract was for about
half of that value.
A spokesman for the company contended the contract was worth $4
billion but refused to provide evidence to support that claim.
"These are facts," spokesman Michael Padovano had said, but added
he was not "at liberty" to share further information.
Capone also described a health insurance plan in which "we have
already signed up over 3,000 asylum seekers onto New York state
Medicaid through UnitedHealthcare." Padovano said the company does
not enroll anyone onto health insurance.
After the newspaper reported his falsified professional biography
-- misrepresenations that were on the company's website, a resume
Capone attached to a COVID-19 services procurement document with
New Jersey and in a filing with the U.S. Security Exchange
Commission -- DocGo announced that he had stepped down and would be
replaced as CEO.
Capone has since been brought back to work at the company through
March as a consultant for about $225,000, according to a public
filing by the company earlier this month.
The company recently provided investors with a letter from the
state Office of Temporary Disability and Assistance, dated Oct. 10,
which indicates the upstate shelters DocGo is running from hotels
are generally providing the assistance they are required. The Times
Union found the report to had several holes, including whether it
accurately assessed the hotel rooms where bedbugs have been
reported. The letter was released by the company a day after
migrants protested living conditions at a shelter hotel in
Rotterdam. [GN]
DOCGO INC: Naclerio Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
JOE NACLERIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOCGO INC., STAN VASHOVSKY, ANTHONY CAPONE,
ANDRE OBERHOLZER, NORMAN ROSENBERG, and LEE BIENSTOCK, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-09476 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired DocGo securities between November
8, 2022 and September 17, 2023, both dates, seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, 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) the foregoing increased the likelihood of
disruptive executive turnover; (iii) contrary to its
representations to investors, DocGo had overstated the efficacy of
its mobile health and medical transportation services, the very
services contemplated by the relocation contract; (iv) all of the
foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject DocGo to
significant reputational and/or regulatory scrutiny that would
negatively impact the Company's financial position and/or
prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On this news, DocGo's stock price fell $0.41 per share, or 7.19%,
to close at $5.29 per share on September 18, 2023.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
DocGo Inc. offers mobile health and medical transportation services
for various health care providers in the U.S. and the United
Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
PORTNOY LAW FIRM
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
EOS ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Filing
-------------------------------------------------
EOS Energy Enterprises, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on August 1, 2023,
a class action complaint was filed against the company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and its former
Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey.
Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with statements and alleged omissions relating to the
company's business, prospects and reported backlog.
Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets innovative energy storage solutions for utility-scale,
microgrid, and commercial/industrial applications.
EPIQ CORPORATE: Court Grants Final OK of Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Smalley of The Record reports that a federal magistrate
judge in Connecticut on October 27, 2023 gave final approval to a
class action settlement providing $50,000 to each of 129 alleged
clergy sex abuse victims whose identities were made public during
Chapter 11 proceedings for the Catholic Diocese of Norwich.
In February, employees of the diocese's legal solutions provider
Epiq Global publicly listed the alleged victims' names and
addresses in a so-called affidavit of service. Epiq was under a
court order requiring the alleged sexual abuse victims' names to be
kept private, according to a motion for final approval of the
settlement filed by the plaintiffs' lawyer Kelly Reardon.
The alleged abuse victims' information was posted on various
platforms, including a case website designed for public viewing,
and was not removed for 21 hours, Reardon's motion said.
Two plaintiffs will receive payments of $75,000 each, according to
the motion, making the total award for the victims' $6.6 million.
Epiq's lawyer and lawyers for its insurers negotiated and agreed to
the settlement.
Epiq did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN]
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Sayce Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER L. SAYCE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHAEL DECESARE, and CHRISTOPHER
HARMS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00076-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiffs
move the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for an Order:
1. Certifying a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Forescout Technologies,
Inc.'s
("Forescout") common stock between May 9, 2019 and May 15,
2020,
both dates inclusive;
2. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
3. Appointing Plaintiffs' choice of counsel, Pomerantz LLP and
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs move to certify a Class for the claims against
Defendants on behalf of those persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Forescout
during the Class Period.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint the
Glazer Funds and Meitav as Class Representatives and appoint
Pomerantz and AFT as Class Counsel.
The Lead Plaintiffs are Glazer Capital Management, L.P., Glazer
Enhanced Fund, L.P., Glazer Enhanced Offshore Fund, Ltd., Glazer
Offshore Fund, Ltd., Highmark Limited, in respect of its Segregated
Account Highmark Multi-Strategy 2 (collectively, the "Glazer
Funds"), and Meitav Mutual Funds Ltd. (f/k/a Meitav Tachlit Mutual
Funds Ltd.)
Forescout is a cybersecurity company focusing on securing large
computer networks.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QIw3oA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
Omar Jafri, Esq.
Patrick Dahlstrom, Esq.
Brian P. O'Connell, Esq.
Genc Arifi, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
ojafri@pomlaw.com
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
boconnell@pomlaw.com
garifi@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
Michael Jason Klein, Esq.
Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
E-mail: JAbraham@aftlaw.com
mklein@aftlaw.com
pbishop@aftlaw.com
FORKABLE DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORKABLE DELIVERY, CO.; and DOES 1 through
50, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV26664 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Oct. 31, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest
periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Castillo was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver.
FORKABLE DELIVERY, CO. is a technology company that connects
offices, restaurants, and drivers. The AI bot predicts what people
want to eat and automatically orders their meals. Forkable Delivery
Co facilitates the delivery of meals by engaging independent
drivers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Young K. Park, Esq.
William C. Sung, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C.
3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1815
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (323) 922-2000
Facsimile: (323) 922-2000
Email: young@justiceforworkers.com
william@justiceforworkers.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Dismisses Aluminum Price Fixing Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
price-fixing suit against Goldman Sachs & Co. and other aluminum
traders was properly dismissed on standing grounds, the Second
Circuit said on Nov. 1.
The plaintiffs, first-level and individual aluminum purchasers,
alleged that Goldman Sachs and other traders, including Henry Bath
LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities plc, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Glencore Ltd, Glencore International Ag, and Access World
(Vlissingen) BV, conspired to artificially limit the supply of
aluminum in North America, which pushed up the prices and generated
excessive profits for them. But the plaintiffs didn't purchase
aluminum directly from the defendants. [GN]
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Hodges Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS HODGES, HALEYRAE CANNELL, DANIELLE BENEDICT, CHRISTOPHER
BRITTON, XE DAVIS, AND EMILY HOZA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2023) is
a class action brought against GoodRx for alleged violations of
state and federal wiretapping statutes, consumer protection laws,
common law privacy rights, in connection with its interception of
the electronic communications and contents of visitors to both its
website, https://www.goodrx.com, and the GoodRx mobile
application.
According to the complaint, GoodRx embeds tracking software and
business analytical tools, which disclose personally identifiable
information to some of the largest advertising companies in the
country such as Meta Platforms, Inc., Criteo Corp., and Google LLC.
The Pixel then deploys on the Internet browser of each GoodRx
platform user for the purpose of watching, intercepting, and
recording the GoodRx platform user's electronic communications with
GoodRx, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, URLs
of web pages visited, and other electronic communications in
real-time, says the suit.
Through GoodRx's improper and illegal conduct, Plaintiffs and
putative Class Members' private information was collected and
disclosed for advertising and analytics purposes to third parties.
This information includes personally identifying information and/or
personally identifiable health information, the suit alleges.
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick Montoya, Esq.
Markus M. Kamberger, Esq.
WHITFIELD COLEMAN & MONTOYA
201 Sevilla Ave, Second Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 206-7874
Facsimile: (786) 206-0660
- and -
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
221 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
- and -
Jacob R. McManamon, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
E-mail: jmcmanamon@milberg.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE: Faces Rice Suit Over Unpaid Preshift Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that Geico fails to pay
its employees for all of the hours they worked, according to a
class action lawsuit filed Oct. 19 in Georgia federal court.
Plaintiff Chris Rice says he worked as a Geico sales representative
and was paid hourly. In March 2020, he says Geico began remotely
employing sales representatives.
Geico also adjusted its pay and timekeeping practices to reflect
the change to remote work, the Geico class action lawsuit
explains.
Rice says that remote sales representatives utilized a Cisco
software application called Finesse to handle calls. This
application tracks the amount of time a sales representative is
logged into it, but it allegedly does not track all of the time
Geico employees spend performing other work activities.
Geico class action says company does not pay for pre- and
post-shift work
Prior to logging in to Finesse, Geico sales representatives must
spend several minutes completing a multi-step process to ensure
they are logged in to Finesse at their scheduled shift start time,
Rice says.
This process reportedly includes powering up the computer, loading
Microsoft Windows, connecting to Geico's virtual private network
(VPN), loading the programs required to handle sales calls and
reading and responding to emails.
"Sales representatives must perform these work tasks in order to
perform their job handling sales calls," the Geico pay lawsuit
asserts.
It also takes several minutes to complete a multi-step process to
log out of the computer programs and respond to emails at the end
of their schedule shift time, but these minutes are similarly not
tracked by Finesse, Rice says.
Rice claims that sales representatives often experienced technical
problems during the workday, but were expected to remain near their
computers or on the phone to seek assistance from a supervisor or
the IT department so they could access Finesse.
However, when such "downtime" occurred, Geico would allegedly
require sales representatives to make up the time by working past
the end of their scheduled shift or have the time deducted from
their accrued paid leave.
Rice says he routinely worked approximately two unpaid hours per
week due to technical problems. He says Geico unlawfully retaliated
against him when he complained that his time sheet did not reflect
all of the hours he worked.
Rice filed the Geico pay lawsuit on behalf of himself and other
current and former Geico sales representatives who worked at a call
center in the United States at any time since Oct. 19, 2020.
The Geico class action lawsuit alleges Geico violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act's overtime wage requirements.
Geico was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it charged
excessive premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic when people drove
less.
Have you experienced Geico pay issues? Tell us about your
experience in the comments!
Rice is represented by Nicholas Stanojevich and Richard Rouco of
Quinn Connor Weaver Davies & Rouco LLP and David W. Garrison,
Joshua A. Frank and Nicole A. Chanin of Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison PLLC.
The Geico pay class action lawsuit is Chris Rice v. Government
Employee Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO, et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-00414-TES, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Macon Division. [GN]
GTS TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit accuses Burr
Ridge trucking company GTS of improperly scanning workers' faces to
monitor their work activity, allegedly in violation of Illinois'
stringent biometrics privacy law.
According to the lawsuit, the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act requires employers to obtain consent from employees
before collecting their biometric data, and to maintain the data in
a secure manner and have a publicly disclosed plan for how the data
will eventually be destroyed, says the lawsuit, filed in Cook
County Circuit Court.
"None of these directives were followed," states the lawsuit
against GTS.
The company uses a separate biometric cameras to monitor each
worker, the suit says.
"Defendant did not inform in writing either Plaintiff or class
members that their biometric data was being recorded, obtained,
collected, and/or stored," says the suit. " Defendant did not
inform in writing either Plaintiff or class members the specific
purpose and length of term for which their biometric data would be
collected, stored, and/or used."
The suit seeks $5,000 for each willful or reckless violation of the
law and $1,000 for each negligent violation, plus attorney fees.
Thousands of such class action lawsuits have been filed against
employers throughout Illinois in the past few years under the BIPA
law. Payouts in such lawsuits can quickly climb into the millions
of dollars, thanks to Illinois Supreme Court rulings which
interpret the law to allow plaintiffs to sue for each and every
scan of a person's biometrics dating back five years. The state
high court has also delivered rulings that all but eliminate the
ability of most employers to defend themselves against the law or
reduce their damages. Faced with such risks, all employers targeted
under the law have ultimately settled the lawsuits against them.
The plaintiffs are represented by Roberto Luis Costales and William
H. Beaumont of Beaumont Costales LLC.
Hecht v. GTS Transportation Corporation, Cook County Circuit Court,
2023CH08643. [GN]
GUARANTEED RATE: Former Employee Files FLSA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Flávia Furlan Nunes, writing for HousingWire, reports that a
former employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Chicago-based mortgage lender Guaranteed Rate for failing to pay
minimum and overtime wages, violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
According to the lawsuit, Robert Peters worked for G-Rate as a
mortgage loan officer from January 2017 to December 2020, when the
mortgage market was booming due to historically low rates imposed
to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the U.S.
economy.
During that time, Peters sold home loans to customers for
properties in California, receiving his salary on a commission-only
basis. It means that when Peters did not sell loans, G-Rate did not
pay any wages for his work, the lawsuit claims.
However, Peters claims he regularly worked more than eight hours
daily and often more than 12 hours a day without receiving overtime
wages. He said the company did not provide paid rest periods of at
least 10 uninterrupted minutes when he worked at least 3.5 hours.
Peters and Guaranteed Rate did not reply to HousingWire's requests
for comments.
The plaintiff's attorney, Joshua S. Boyette, from Swartz Swidler
LLC, said Guaranteed Rate had a commission-based payment plan but
the company did not pay all the commission at the time of
separation. It also did not pay for unproductive time and rest
breaks, violating California labor laws, he added.
"We believe the issue was systemic at Guaranteed Rate and,
unfortunately, a number of other mortgage banks in the industry,"
Boyette said in an interview.
In addition to his work as a loan officer, Peters says he also
performed tasks other than selling loans, "including but not
limited to participating in meetings, administrative work, and
booting up a work computer." G-Rate did not pay additional wages
for the time spent performing these activities, the lawsuit
states.
According to the lawsuit, G-Rate failed to provide a detailed pay
statement to the former employee, missing information such as the
total hours worked and the number of paid rest periods.
Peters claims that, when he parted ways with G-Rate, he did not
receive all earned commissions in the required timeline - within 72
hours if he had resigned without notice or immediately if Peters
had provided notice or the company had discharged him, which is
required by California labor laws.
Instead, G-Rate paid his final commissions according to the same
schedule for the payment that was in effect during his employment
at the earliest or later, the lawsuit states.
Peters' attorney filed the lawsuit on Oct. 31 with the U.S.
District Court in Northern California.
Peters does not know the exact size of the class-action lawsuit,
because the information is in G-Rate's exclusive control, per the
lawsuit. "However, on information and belief, the number of
potential class members is estimated to be more than forty (40)
employees," the lawsuit states.
It's no secret the current mortgage market is brutal for lenders
across the board. Guaranteed Rate's production volume in the first
half of this year totaled $17.6 billion, down about 47% from the
same period in 2022, according to data from Inside Mortgage
Finance.
In August, the company cut hundreds of employees across two rounds
of layoffs, HousingWire reported. As of Oct. 31, 2,051 mortgage
loan officers were licensed with G-Rate's primary mortgage
businesses, according to data from the Nationwide Multistate
Licensing System (NMLS). On Oct. 8, the previous total was 2,094.
In another legal battle, HousingWire reported that its affiliated
company Guaranteed Rate Affinity is suing former LOs, accusing them
of breaching contracts by failing to pay back advanced signing
bonuses and commissions after they left the company.
The Wall Street Journal also recently reported that the company is
going after "hundreds of LOs" who signed six- and seven-figure
bonuses. [GN]
HALLFORDHOMES LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Mishandled Remains
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Watson of 11News reports that at least one family member of
one of the individuals allegedly identified in the Return to Nature
Funeral Home investigation has filed a class action lawsuit against
the funeral home and its owners.
This is just the newest legal action taken against the Hallfords,
and as more families learn their loved ones were located within the
funeral home, legal representation for Richard Law said they hope
these families join him in pursuit for change.
Law's father Roger died in November 2020, and on October 19,
Richard said the FBI visited him to confirm Roger was one of the
individuals located. The lawsuit filed on October 30, 2023 claims
the funeral home and Hallfords are guilty of things like
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, fraud and
violating the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
In all, the lawsuit makes 13 claims for relief.
"Even as bodies were piling up at their facility in Penrose, these
defendants continued to assume custody of more and more and more
bodies," Andrew Swan, one of Law's attorneys, said. "And taking
more and more and more money for services that they weren't going
to provide."
According to the filed lawsuit, Law is seeking a jury trial for the
Hallfords related to their actions. Swan said they hope to both
hold the Hallfords accountable and inspire a change in Colorado's
funeral home laws.
"Colorado is literally the single outlier state that doesn't
require license or mandatory inspections for funeral homes and
crematoriums," Swan said. "And that has allowed instances like
this, at Return to Nature to occur with an alarming degree of
irregularity." [GN]
HANDS OF COMPASSION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN CASTILLO; and MELANIE MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANDS OF COMPASSION
HOME CARE, LLC; DEACONESS HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.; and KAREN
VAHLBERG, Case No. 7:23-cv-00168 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 30, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as nurses.
HANDS OF COMPASSION HOME CARE, LLC is a home health agency serving
Midland, Texas and the surrounding area. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1980
Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
Telephone: (806) 780-3976
Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
Email: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com
HOMAGE LLC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Homage, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-09457-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023) is a civil rights
action against Homage for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, homage.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
jacket on Homage.com. Trying to make a purchase, he encountered
difficulty in navigating the website due to its inaccessibility,
making it impossible to complete the purchase. The Plaintiff seeks
a permanent injunction to cause a change in Homage's policies,
practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Homage, LLC manufactures and retails vintage-style apparel related
to sports and pop culture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
JCJOHNSON ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Douglas Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DORRINE DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JCJOHNSON ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a ROUTE 13
DINER; and JIMMY JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03544 (S.D.
Ill., Oct. 31, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Douglas was employed by the Defendants as a cook.
JCJOHNSON ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a ROUTE 13 DINER owns and operates
a restaurant in Illinos. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 568-3056
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
KONA COFFEE: $41M+ Settlement in Coffee False Ads Granted Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein reports that U.S. District
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the Western District of Washington at
Seattle has granted final approval to the latest and last
settlement in a lawsuit brought by Hawaii's Big Island coffee
farmers accusing retailers and suppliers of falsely labeling
ordinary coffee beans as premium "Kona" coffee.
Judge Lasnik's ruling brings an end to a four-year-old class action
lawsuit, in which defendants, including coffee roasting companies
as well as large resellers such as Costco, Walmart, Amazon and
Kroger, have agreed to pay more than $41 million to the Kona
growers, and have agreed to a host of labeling and business
practice changes to ensure accurate and reliable labeling of Kona
coffee products. Those strictures are projected to generate more
than $81 million in economic value for the growers over the next
five years.
In approving the latest settlement, Judge Lasnik described this
litigation as one "of the most impressive class action cases I have
dealt with in my time on the federal bench, and the results as
"great for justice . . . a real result that makes people whole
again."
Lieff Cabraser brought the suit on behalf of the farmers in 2019,
claiming that only coffee harvested from Hawaii's Big Island is
actually Kona coffee, and that those companies -- almost two dozen
named in the original suit -- were selling beans and ground coffee
under the name without buying from them, in violation of the Lanham
Act. The David vs. Goliath style case pitted three small, longtime
Kona coffee farms against 22 major coffee suppliers and retailers,
selling a variety of mislabeled coffee products across the country
in multiple channels of commerce. [GN]
MCKINSEY & CO: British Columbia Gov't Can Pursue Opioid Drugs Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Gruske, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
government of British Columbia can continue its quest to recover
opioid-related healthcare costs and damages from a US-based
consultant.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed an application by
McKinsey & Company Inc., United States and McKinsey & Company
Canada to strike initiating pleadings in a class action launched by
the province. In the process, the court rejected every argument the
company made that there is no meaningful connection between itself
and the opioid crisis in Canada.
Originally, BC initiated proceedings against companies which
manufactured, marketed, distributed or sold opioid drugs and
products. Certification of that action is expected to happen before
the end of the year.
Then, the province decided to seek damages from McKinsey as well.
BC claims that by providing consulting services, where it
integrated itself into its drug-manufacturing clients' business,
McKinsey was involved in the design, strategy and execution of
marketing efforts to promote and sell addictive and harmful opioid
products in Canada and named the US-based consulted in the Amended
Notice of Civil Claim (ANOCC).
In asking for the strike in British Columbia v. McKinsey, 2023 BCSC
1762, the consulting company argued the following points: that "BC
failed to provide sufficient detail about the alleged wrongdoing;
and that the province has failed altogether to plead the material
facts necessary to connect (a) McKinsey to the alleged wrongdoing
and (b) McKinsey's impugned conduct to British Columbia."
In rendering his judgement, Justice Michael Brundrett addressed the
Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (ORA), which is
modelled after the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery
Act (and which survived a constitutional challenge before the
Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd.). The act came into force on October 31, 2018. It was
later amended by Bill 34, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs
Recovery Amendment Act, 2022, to include a right of action by the
province and the Government of Canada against a consultant in
addition to a manufacturer or wholesaler/distributor.
Justice Brundrett also addressed allegations of conspiracy and
arguments related to breaches of Competition Act claims,
specifically s. 52.
And it's the Competition Act elements, the conflict of laws issue,
that grabbed the attention of Scott Stanley, a lawyer with Murphy
Battista.
"I think [this ruling] is going to be of profound interest to
lawyers who do these [class action] claims and are working with the
Competition Act. It's a novel pleading; it was one that survived a
strike," said Stanley.
He explains that s. 52 claims are "challenging civil claims to
advance because they're predicated on first establishing the
commission of an offence. Here, the alleged misrepresentation did
not occur in Canada; it was not made directly by the defendant to
any entity in Canada. Those facts would generally be incongruent
with establishing a penal offence in Canada. Alleging that McKinsey
acted as one with its drug manufacturer clients to collectively
promote inaccurate messaging about opioids is novel, but seemingly
contemplated by the legislation."
Justin Giovannetti, an associate at Slater Vecchio, was struck by a
different aspect of the case – "the low bar under s. s 4.1(a) of
the Class Proceedings Act being whether the pleadings disclose a
cause of action."
"This was an application to strike some of the province's claims
against McKinsey," says Giovannetti. "But that strike standard is
highly similar to the standard under s. 4.1(a) of the Class
Proceedings Act, which is also about whether or not pleadings
disclose a cause of action. Except, under s 4.1(a), the onus is on
the plaintiff. And the parties in this decision agreed that the
court's decision on the strike application, Rule 9-5(1) of the
Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, would be
determinative of s. 4.1(a). Notwithstanding, it's not a s. 4.1(a)
decision, it's a strike decision; the same principles, or at least
highly similar ones, apply.
"It highlights the low bar because, at various times, McKinsey
alleged that there was no evidence they made representations to the
public. The court said, in paragraphs 61 and 62, well, it's
pleaded, and that is sufficient."
According to Stanley, although the ORA provides a framework, the
government will still have to prove a tort and a compensable cause
of action as the case progresses.
One other matter brought up before the court was the issue of
foreseeability. The ANOCC alleges that "McKinsey knew or ought to
have known that the marketing or distribution strategies it
produced in the US were being implemented in Canada, forming a
possible factual basis for establishing the requisite
foreseeability and proximity to ground a duty of care between
McKinsey and opioid consumers in BC."
McKinsey, however, disagreed and argued that "foreseeability alone
is not sufficient to ground a duty of care… there must also be a
close and direct relationship of proximity or neighbourhood…
McKinsey submits that there are no material facts to support the
existence of a close and direct relationship between McKinsey and
end users of the impugned opioids in BC."
Justice Brundrett sided with the government on this argument. He
wrote, "I see no merit in McKinsey's submissions on this point. I
find that the Province has pleaded material facts regarding
McKinsey's connection to BC in respect of all its claims. It is not
plain and obvious that the pleadings would fail on this basis."
How much McKinsey could predict and what its aims and goals were
when embedded with its clients is likely to arise again as this
case moves into its subsequent phases.
"Foreseeability is not sufficient," says Stanley. "You'd actually
need manifest intent. You have to prove intent. Foreseeability is
something you'd see in negligence and civil misrepresentation.
Section 52 is predicated on proving an offence – that somebody
intended to do this. That doesn't jump out at you when you look at
what has been pled there."
Although this is a BC-based case, its outcome will have
repercussions across the country and not just because of the
nationwide opioid crisis. Giovannetti explains that BC filed this
on behalf of the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial
governments, even if they have the option to opt-out if the claim
gets certified.
"It's important to individuals in other provinces because there is
a decent chance this will affect them. That's in terms of the
specific action, but the class proceedings legislation is very
similar across the provinces insofar as the test. To the extent
that this speaks to when pleadings disclose the cause of action,
this decision will inform any plaintiffs' or defendants' lawyers
who seek to get claims certified under their respective class
proceedings act. It's a good summary of what the test is. It's
about what the pleadings say; what did they plead? We don't need
evidence to back it up at this stage." [GN]
MELISSA CADDICK: Fraud Class Suit Not Connected to Audit Failures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keeli Cambourne, writing or SMSF Adviser, reports that the Melissa
Caddick class action does not "shine a light on SMSF audit
failures", says one of the country's leading specialists.
Shelley Banton, head of education for ASF Audits, said despite
media reports the audit sector will be under the spotlight as the
class action gets underway, she is not concerned about potential
negative impacts.
Law firm Mackay Chapman filed a suit in the Federal Court in Sydney
on behalf of 24 victims of Ms Caddick.
The filing alleged that the 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 said to be held by the SMSFs existed.
It further alleges that auditors were negligent, engaged in
misleading or deceptive conduct and/or representations, and
breached the Corporations Act and ASIC Act.
According to the law firm at least five auditors were engaged to
conduct the mandatory annual audit of the SMSFs between 2012 and
2020.
Mackay Chapman also alleged that capital losses of around $12
million will be claimed, relating to 24 funds representing around
50 investors.
The firm said in a media release 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".
Ms Banton told SMSF Adviser it is outrageous to think an entire
cohort of SMSF auditors have had their professional reputations
tarnished by the five named in this class action.
"SMSF auditors who purposefully avoid their professional
responsibilities for many reasons, such as a lack of auditor
independence, poor documentation, failure to report non-compliance
and a conflict of interest, should be held responsible for their
negligence," she said.
"The outcome of this class action will rely on the facts and
circumstances of each SMSF auditor's audit file and whether it
contains sufficient appropriate audit evidence to substantiate
their opinion."
Ms Banton said there would be no class action if Ms Caddick's
clients still had their money, and these types of lawsuits are the
exception, not the rule.
"SMSF auditors are proudly committed to safeguarding Australians'
retirement wealth and the integrity of the superannuation system,"
she said.
If the case is successful, media reports suggest that more than a
million SMSF investors could be affected by the doubt cast by a
questionable audit system.
Ms Banton said recent ATO scrutiny and action against auditors is
not an indication the SMSF audit sector is deteriorating.
She said there are about 4,000 active auditors and recent
regulatory changes have seen a "reset" of the sector.
"We have more than enough auditors, and people underestimate the
power of technology here," she said.
"The problem is auditors who do a handful of funds each year cannot
keep up with the standards and issues in the industry," she added.
[GN]
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Suit Verdict to Hit Real Estate Agents
------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Abundis, writing for KSHB, reports that a federal jury's
decision in a Kansas City, Missouri, courtroom could make drastic
changes to the home buying process across the country.
Some say it's a victory for people selling their houses while
others say the verdict could be at the expense of buyers and their
agents.
"Not only are you paying 3% to an agent working to sell your house,
but 3% for the buyer's agent too," said Michael Ketchmark, an
attorney representing 500,000 home sellers across Missouri, Kansas
and Illinois in a class action lawsuit. "We were able to prove
during the trial that that's because of a rigged system who got
together to conspire to fix the prices and its cost Missourians,
Kansans and residents of Illinois over $1.7 billion in 2015-222."
The home sellers in Missouri, Kansas and Illinois brought the
federal lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors and
several large brokerages.
The suit alleged the realtor's group conspired with brokerages to
inflate commissions paid to agents.
The federal jury sided with the sellers and awarded them nearly
$1.8 billion.
If the verdict is upheld, sellers likely won't be required to pay
the commission of the buyer's agents.
"We're at a point where we have to pivot and that's what were
doing," said Shawnna Murrell with Murrell Homes Real Estate Group.
Murrell Homes Real Estate Group on Main Street in KCMO has served
more than 250 families.
Today in the office, Shawnna Murrell said there's concern about
what this ruling means for them and the other 13,000 real estate
agents in the metro area.
"The concern will fall on those agents because that income could
change drastically," Murrell said. "Where they are used to getting
a certain percentage now could be half of that," Murrell said.
They say the ruling also could hinder some home buyers, especially
if sellers ask buyers to pick up their commission agents' costs.
"It could increase what they need to bring to the closing table and
for first-time home buyers that can be a challenge. It also can be
a challenge for low-income buyers as well," she said. "My concern
is that some buyers are low-income families. They may have limited
funds. It could be a challenge for buyers."
She says it's important for people to understand the value of
agents.
"What could change is if the buyer broker commission is now taken
from what the buyer needs to bring to the closing table then that
is an amount that is now added," she said. "When you look at the
grand scheme of things, the commissions have always been
negotiable, always been negotiable, it's nothing new. They need to
understand the commissions they choose to pay out to the buyer
brokerage is literally a marketing incentive, it's nothing more
than that."
One of the Kansas City homeowners represented in the lawsuit, Jerod
Breit, said the standard of paying the commission didn't sit right
with him
"It feels great to be a part of something that can change the
system," said Breit.
He and attorney Ketchmark filed a nationwide lawsuit to do the same
thing.
They estimate it'll save homeowners nationwide more than $50
billion a year.
"These real estate agents are awesome people, are great at what
they do," Ketchmark said. "Maybe they won't be able to make 3% for
not doing as much work on the buyer's side, but they can make more
money on the sell side. Commissions ought to be 1-2%, the free
market should be like that. When I graduated from law school, we
used to have travel agents and we paid travel agents 10% of a
ticket. You don't do that anymore because that's the internet
working for you." [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Congestion Pricing Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briana Vannozzi, writing for NJ Spotlight News, reports that Fort
Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich was joined on Nov. 1 by U.S. Rep. Josh
Gottheimer (D-5th) and local officials as he announced a federal
class-action lawsuit over the congestion pricing plan for New York
City.
The lawsuit against the federal government, Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel
Authority, alleges the plan to charge drivers entering Manhattan
south of 60th Street up to $23 will increase pollution and traffic
for residents in north Jersey, especially Fort Lee, where the
entrance to the George Washington Bridge is located.
The suit was filed jointly by Sokolich and Richard Galler, a Fort
Lee resident. It contends the Federal Highway Administration
"failed to consider the safety and well-being" of neighboring
states and failed to conduct a thorough environmental review.
The Murphy administration sued the MTA in July in an effort to halt
congestion pricing.
Gottheimer said at the announcement on Nov. 1 the MTA is giving
more than $130 million to the Bronx to mitigate air pollution
arising from congestion pricing, but none to New Jersey.
"Not a nickel to Jersey, not a nickel for environmental or health
impacts, not a nickel to mitigate traffic," Gottheimer said. "You
think they'd be worried about our children. Apparently not. They're
moving ahead and instead spreading their hush money to buy off the
Bronx and elsewhere because they know what they're doing is wrong."
[GN]
NOVARTIS AG: Court Grants Approves Distribution of Settlement Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi disclosed that on October 31, 2023, the Court
overseeing the Exforge litigation granted direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for distribution of the net settlement funds.
The Court previously issued an order granting final approval to the
$126.85 million settlement between direct purchasers and Novartis.
Faruqi & Faruqi served as counsel to the class of direct purchasers
in this pay-for-delay antitrust case relating to Novartis'
hypertension medication, Exforge. [GN]
RALPH ROWE: Court Approves Terms of $13M Deal in Sex Assault Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Law of CBC reports that the terms of a $13-million
class-action settlement involving notorious sex offender Ralph Rowe
have been approved by an Ontario Superior Court justice.
A former Anglican priest and scoutmaster, Rowe spent the 1970s and
'80s working in remote First Nations across northwestern Ontario
and parts of Manitoba, and it's believed he abused up to 500
children. He's now in his 80s.
The class-action lawsuit was filed by representative plaintiff
Alvin McKay of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation in 2017.
By that time, Rowe had a total of 75 convictions, but spent fewer
than five years in prison.
A settlement was reached in August. The parties include McKay, Rowe
and Rowe's former employers, the Anglican Church's Synod of the
Diocese of Keewatin and Scouts Canada. This will provide up to
$350,000 in compensation for each class member who was sexually
assaulted by Rowe between 1975 and 1987 within the geographic
boundaries of the Diocese of Keewatin.
There were no objections to the settlement.
"I'm just glad it's over," McKay said during a media scrum after
the hearing. "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."
McKay was sexually assaulted at least three times by Rowe over a
two-year period, beginning when McKay was five, according to a
statement of claim from 2017.
Survivors may speak with elders instead of lawyers
Ontario Superior Court Justice Bonnie R. Warkentin indicated she
will sign off on the terms of the settlement and benefits available
to class members. She said she'll provide written reasons at a
later date.
"On October 27, 2023 is a historic and momentous event," Warkentin
said at the start of October 27, 2023's hearing.
She commended Rowe's victims, referred to as survivors, for having
the courage to share their stories, and said what happened to them
should be taught in schools.
Prior to the class action, 68 individual settlements against Rowe
and his employers went through the courts. There has been a high
mortality rate among known victims, but their family members will
be eligible for settlement claims through estates, said Jonathan
Ptak of Koskie Minsky LLP, the Toronto-based firm representing
McKay.
There are two ways eligible class members can get compensation:
A simplified claims process that may pay compensation between
$30,000 and $140,000, depending on the severity of abuse and the
number of claimants.
A more intensive claims process for certain claims that may pay
compensation of up to $350,000, depending on the severity of abuse
and the number of claimants.
Additionally, $1,500 will be provided for counselling and an
honorarium of $15,000 will be given to McKay for his work as the
representative plaintiff.
Ptak spoke of the pain that comes from reliving trauma while
seeking compensation. He said the settlement aims to minimize that
trauma as much as possible.
Unique in this class action is the option for applicants to do
interviews with elders instead of lawyers and not have to face
opposing counsel, he said.
Survivors react to settlement
More than two dozen people sat in the gallery during the hearing
— largely survivors, their family members and supporters from
Nishnawbe Aski Nation.
"It's been a long journey for all of us here, very stressful," said
Terry Ostamus of Kingfisher Lake First Nation. "It's like a
nightmare, being a survivor. There's bad days and good days, but we
still try and get through."
While he's happy with the settlement, he said money doesn't take
away the pain Rowe caused.
"It's not gonna solve our problems, like what happened to us as
kids. It's not gonna go away, you know? You still have to live
through that every day [for] the rest of our lives," Ostamus said.
"But I'm happy that we got something done on October 30, 2023."
Nishnawbe Aski Nation runs a Men's Healing Initiative, which has
supported survivors throughout the process.
"A dollar amount will not take away the pain, will not bring back
those men whose lives were lost either by a criminal offence or
violence or imprisonment or suicide. But the dollar amount also
represents the acknowledgment of their pain," said Nishnawbe Aski
Nation's Deputy Grand Chief Anna Betty Achneepineskum.
Among the class action's main goals was to secure apologies from
the Anglican Church of Canada and Scouts Canada. In 2017, the
church said it would issue a formal apology — making a commitment
to confront the "legacy of brokenness" created by Rowe in northern
communities — but that hasn't happened yet, the court heard on
October 27, 2023.
"We've had many conversations with the Boy Scouts of Canada —
they've been a little bit more receptive to meeting with us. We
still have a lot of work to do when it comes to the Anglican Church
but we do have a plan for that," said Achneepineskum.
Nishnawbe Aski Nation will continue to work with survivors to help
them apply for claims and share their stories with the broader
public. Achneepineskum said she'd also like to see a healing
foundation created and more support for survivors within the
region's remote communities. [GN]
RECKITT BENCKISER: Suboxone Consumers Received Settlement Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Prieto, writing for Drugwatch, reports that as of October
2023, Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits are in the initial stages and
Suboxone lawyers are still accepting and investigating these cases.
There haven't been any court-approved, publicly announced Suboxone
settlements for dental problems and no trials have been scheduled.
Status of Suboxone Lawsuits:
October 2023: Indivior agreed to pay $385 million to settle
Suboxone lawsuits drug wholesalers filed.
September 2023: David Sorensen filed a Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit
against Indivior, Reckitt Benckisner and other defendants after he
used the drug and developed permanent damage to his teeth and
required substantial dental work.
August 2023: Indivior reached a Suboxone settlement for $30 million
with health care plans that had brought a federal antitrust lawsuit
against the company.
April 2023: The Federal Trade Commission announced it had paid
about $369,000 to consumers who joined Suboxone class-action
lawsuits but missed the original deadline.
January 2022: FDA publicly announced the agency received reports
that medicines containing buprenorphine that dissolve in the mouth,
such as Suboxone, can cause dental problems. Adding a new warning
to the drug's prescribing information and patient medication guide
was required.
There haven't been any settlements for Suboxone teeth damage
lawsuits. However, in May 2021, FTC reached a $60 million agreement
to resolve false marketing claims.
FTC sent about 51,875 class-action settlement payments to
consumers. These people allegedly overpaid for Suboxone because of
a "deceptive scheme by Reckitt Benckiser Group and Indivior, Inc.
to thwart lower-proved generic competition with the branded drug
Suboxone."
Why Are People Filing Suboxone Lawsuits?
People are filing Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits because they
developed serious dental problems after using Suboxone. Lawsuits
claim Indivior knew or should have known the risks but failed to
warn medical providers and consumers.
"As warned by the FDA on January 12, 2022, serious dental issues
are being reported following use of the sublingual Suboxone
delivery system, a strip that contains buprenorphine and dissolves
in the mouth. This Suboxone film looks and dissolves much like
breath freshening strips you would buy at a gas station or a
grocery store," mass tort and product liability attorney Trent B.
Miracle told Drugwatch.
Prior to people filing Suboxone lawsuits for dental problems,
Indivior and Reckitt Benckiser faced an antitrust Suboxone
class-action lawsuit that claimed limited competition caused
consumers to overpay for the drug. In 2019 and 2020, the FTC
reached settlements totaling $60 million.
Consumers received the first payments in May 2021 and the remaining
class members received payments in April 2023. Currently, there is
no active Suboxone class-action lawsuit. Current injury lawsuits
are for dental problems.
Deceptive Marketing Claims
In deceptive marketing claims unrelated to the tooth damage
lawsuits, Indivior pleaded guilty to felony charges associated with
Suboxone deceptive marketing and agreed to pay $600 million to
resolve criminal and civil liability in July 2019. Allegedly, the
company deceived doctors and health plans, claiming Suboxone was
safer and less susceptible to abuse than similar drugs.
Indivior "admitted to an aspect of the scheme alleged in the
indictment. Specifically, Indivior Solutions admitted that, in
October 2012, it sought to convince MassHealth to expand Medicaid
coverage of Suboxone Film in Massachusetts and sent MassHealth
false data indicating that Suboxone Film had the lowest rate of
accidental pediatric exposure (i.e., children taking medication by
accident) of all buprenorphine drugs in Massachusetts, when in
fact, it did not," according to a press release from the U.S.
Department of Justice.
The DOJ also reached a $1.4 billion resolution with Reckitt
Benckiser, Indivior's former parent company. Then in October 2019,
Reckitt Benckiser reached a $700 million settlement deal with six
states for improper marketing.
Do I Qualify to File a Suboxone Lawsuit?
If you have had dental problems following use of prescription
Suboxone film, you may qualify to file a Suboxone tooth decay
lawsuit. Only a licensed Suboxone lawyer can tell you if you
qualify to join a suboxone lawsuit.
"People should contact a lawyer if they have noticed any serious
dental issues following use of Suboxone sublingual strips. These
dental problems range from cavities to tooth decay to broken or
lost teeth," Miracle told Drugwatch.
How to Qualify
Have been prescribed Suboxone opioid addiction or pain management
Used prescription Suboxone for at least six months before suffering
injuries
Have one of more of the following injuries: Cavities, tooth loss,
tooth fractures, tooth decay, tongue injuries and gum injuries
Have had routine dental care prior to Suboxone usage
Contact a law firm right away to avoid losing your right to file a
claim. If your diagnosis was more than 10 years ago, you must be
able to get your own dental records.
How a Lawyer Can Help with Your Suboxone Lawsuit
A lawyer can help you gather the correct evidence of tooth decay or
other injuries for your Suboxone case. Your attorney will also file
your lawsuit and then negotiate a Suboxone settlement or prepare
your case for jury trial.
"As with any case, people should carefully research who they hire
to represent them. In complex cases such as this, it is especially
important to retain counsel with resources and years of experience
litigating against multinational pharmaceutical companies,"
according to Miracle.
Like most product liability injury claims, lawyers offer free case
evaluations for Suboxone teeth lawsuits. Law firms don't collect
their fees unless they recover a settlement or jury verdict on your
behalf. [GN]
ROOSEVELT HOTEL: Martinez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROOSEVELT HOTEL, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive;
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV26346 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Oct. 27, 2023) arises from the Defendants unlawful labor practices
in violation of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and the aggrieved employees overtime at the correct rates, failed
to provide meal and rest periods, failed to provide proper sick
pay, failed to furnish accurate itemized written wage statements,
and failed to pay all wages that were due and owing upon separation
of employment.
The Plaintiff has been employed as a banquet server by Defendants
since he was rehired by Defendants in March 2021.
Roosevelt Hotel, LLC operates a hotel in the city of Los Angeles,
California with sixty or more rooms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
BLAKE JONES LAW, PC
355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450 #2052
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (323) 576-3221
E-mail: blake@blakejones.law
SACRAMENTO MEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonk Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA BONK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SACRAMENTO MEDIA, LLC; and STEFAN WANCZYK,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-at-01098 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bonk was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
SACRAMENTO MEDIA, LLC provides magazine and periodical publishing
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
JOSHUA H. WATSON, Esq.
Charles Malmsten, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
Email: jwatson@justice4you.com
SPEAR WILDERMAN: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $800,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Spear Wilderman agreed to pay
$800,000 to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2021 data
breach that compromised sensitive consumer information.
The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was
actually or potentially compromised during a Spear Wilderman data
breach in May 2021.
According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Spear Wildman
stored sensitive client information on an unsecured database that
could be accessed without using a password or other forms of
authentication. Hackers allegedly stole sensitive information from
this unprotected database, including employment information, Social
Security numbers, payment account information and more.
Spear Wilderman is a union-side labor law firm with offices in
Philadelphia. The law firm provides services to clients throughout
the Mid-Atlantic states.
Spear Wilderman hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$800,000 settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to
$125 for, among other things, time spent resolving data
breach-related issues. The actual amount of the payments may be
more or less than $125, depending on the total number of valid
claims received and the amount needed to pay claims for
out-of-pocket costs, attorneys' fees and other expenses.
Class members can also receive larger payments of up to $1,500 for
various documented expenses that are fairly traceable to the data
breach.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 27, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Dec.
20, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Nov. 27, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information was actually or potentially
compromised during a Spear Wilderman data breach in May 2021
Potential Award
$1,625
Proof of Purchase
Receipts or other documentation of data breach-related losses.
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
11/27/2023
Case Name
Raniell v. Spear Wilderman, Case No. 23-cv-01442, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Hassell v. Spear Wilderman, Case No. 230401942-2, in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Final Hearing
12/20/2023
Settlement Website
SpearLawDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Hassell v. Spear Wilderman Settlement Administrator
PO Box 301130
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130
admin@spearlawdatasettlement.com
877-754-1139
Class Counsel
Kenneth J Grunfeld
GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD
Joseph M Lyon
THE LYON FIRM
Charles E Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
Defense Counsel
Edward J McAndrew [GN]
STABILITY AI: Fried Frank Law Firm Won Copyright Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Various publications noted Fried Frank for achieving a significant
victory for Stability AI, Inc., an open source generative AI
company, in a first-of-its-kind class action copyright lawsuit
brought by a group of artists.
Coverage noting the firm includes Law360 and Reuters. Additional
coverage includes Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter and others.
The Fried Frank team representing Stability AI includes partners
Nicole M. Jantzi, Paul M. Schoenhard, Amir R. Ghavi and Michael C.
Keats. [GN]
STATE FARM: Data Breach Class Action Moved to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for WGLT, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed against State Farm accusing the insurance company of
a data breach that allowed 40 million customer records to be stolen
has been moved to federal court.
Florida residents Malcom Scott and his wife Helen Probst Scott
filed the lawsuit in McLean County court on Sept. 13, based on
claims that personal data maintained by State Farm was accessed by
two hacking groups during an August data breach. The lawsuit
alleges the Bloomington-based insurer had not notified customers of
the breach as of the September court filing.
"State Farm could have prevented the data breach by properly
vetting and monitoring its systems," states the complaint filed by
a Minneapolis law firm. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of all
policyholders impacted by the data breach, accuses State Farm of
negligence, invasion of privacy, violation of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and breach of fiduciary duty.
State Farm sought removal of the lawsuit to U.S. District Court for
the Central District of Illinois in Peoria, a request granted by
McLean County judge Rebecca Foley.
"State Farm denies the allegations in the complaint, which are
factually and legally baseless," the company said in its filing
seeking transfer of the case.
State Farm maintains the class action lawsuit qualified for
transfer from state to federal court for several reasons, including
the fact that potential damages total more than $5 million. Even if
each class member with a single policy received $1 in damages,
State Farm could be liable for more than $50 million, based on the
number of policies in force in September, the company argued.
The firm contends the lawsuit also met a "minimal diversity"
criteria for transfer to federal court because the Scotts reside in
Florida and State Farm is based in Illinois.
In their initial complaint, attorneys for class action members said
McLean County court was the proper venue for the lawsuit because
State Farm maintains offices in McLean County, where "a substantial
part of the events and omissions" related to the claims occurred.
Among the personal data routinely collected by State Farm is
consumers' addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, bank and credit card information and
health insurance data, the plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit.
Lawyers for the Scotts did not respond to a request for comment on
the transfer. [GN]
TENNESSEE: Faces Class Suit Over Toxic Ethylene Oxide Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Solomon of 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 October 26, 2023 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.
You can also read more information on the suit here: EtO · Napoli
Shkolnik. [GN]
TERRAN ORBITAL: Faces Mullen Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terran Orbital Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that in February 2023,
a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No.
1:23-cv-01394. The litigation was instituted by Jeffrey Mullen on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.
In July 2023, an amended complaint was filed by Jeffrey Mullen,
Robert Irwin, Justin Carnahan and Thomas Bennett, each on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, naming the company, its
Chief Executive Officer, and the members of Legacy Terran Orbital's
Board of Directors as defendants. The amended class action
complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 11(A) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and Section 158 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law, and breach of fiduciary duties, resulting
from the company's alleged failure to timely transfer shares of
common stock to current and former employee shareholders after the
consummation of the Tailwind Two Merger and alleges materially
false and misleading statements made in the company's Form S-4
Registration Statement and Proxy Prospectus primarily relating to
the process for exchanging shares in connection with the Tailwind
Two Merger.
The complaint seeks an award of damages, an award of reasonable
costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and expert fees, and
an award of such other relief as deemed appropriate by the court.
Terran Orbital Corporation, together with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of satellite products primarily
serving the aerospace and defense industries. It provides
end-to-end satellite solutions by combining satellite design,
production, launch planning, mission operations, and on-orbit
support to meet the needs of its military, civil, and commercial
customers.
THOMAS J. VILSACK: Black Farmers Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK FARMERS &
AGRICULTURALISTS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL, v. THE HONORABLE THOMAS
J. VILSACK, ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-02527-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiffs, Thomas Burrell, Claudette Jackson, Mary Ferguson,
Allie Tillis and Loretta Dixon move the Court, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) for the entry of an
Order:
-- Certifying the action may be maintained and proceed as a class
action against the Defendants;
-- Appointing the Proposed Class Representatives as class
representatives; and
-- Appointing Percy Squire, as Counsel for the Class and as
Liaison
Counsel for the Class.
The Plaintiffs brings this action as a Class Action under Rules
23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons who:
1) Desire to file claims for financial assistance on behalf a
Decedent's estate (Legacy Claims) under section 22007 of the
Inflation Reduction Act, On behalf of all persons who
2) seek relief under the Act in connection with a United States
Department of Agriculture, Housing Loan; and
3) adversely affected by the January 14, 2024, deadline for
filing
applications for financial assistance under the USDA
Discrimination Financial Assistance Program (DFAP).
Thomas James Vilsack is an American politician serving as the 32nd
United States secretary of agriculture in the Biden
administration.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3siAYn0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Percy Squire, Esq.
PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
341 S. Third Street, Suite 10
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6528
Facsimile: (614) 224-6529,
E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com
TIM HORTONS: Settlement Free Items to Expire on January 31, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Belmonte, writing for Narcity, reports that Tim Hortons is
giving out baked goods and hot beverages as part of a class action
lawsuit settlement in Canada.
While you might know about the lawsuit, you might not know that the
settlement offer actually expires and you'll lose your free menu
items if you don't redeem them within a certain time.
The free baked goods and hot drinks were given out to some
customers as a resolution to class action lawsuits filed in
Ontario, B.C. and Quebec.
Those lawsuits alleged that the collection of user data on the Tim
Hortons app was a breach of privacy rights.
Even though the class actions were settled, Tim Hortons said the
allegations haven't been proven in court and so no wrongdoing has
been committed.
Tim Hortons sent an email on February 1, 2023, to Canadian
residents who used the app from April 1, 2019, to September 30,
2020, and had their geolocation data collected at least once.
If you got that email, you are part of the court-approved
settlement and have been given two credits: one free baked good
credit (which includes donuts) and one free hot beverage credit
(which includes coffee).
Both credits were automatically applied to your Tims Rewards
account and were able to be activated for use as of February 1,
2023.
If you don't redeem the credits from the Tim Hortons class action
settlement within 12 months of their deposit, they will expire and
be removed from your Tims Rewards account.
But, if you haven't used your credits within that initial 12-month
period, you can contact Tim Hortons guest services to get them
back.
You can call guest services at 1-888-601-1616, provide the email
address that's associated with your Tims Rewards account and then
get the credits reissued once your claim is validated.
That will be your last opportunity to use the free baked good and
hot beverage credits from the Tim Hortons class action lawsuit
though.
In all cases, the credits will expire 24 months after they were
initially issued which is January 31, 2025.
Tim Hortons said that the baked good credit can be used on a menu
item that costs up to $2.39 plus taxes which includes a croissant,
a muffin, a bun, a biscuit, a cookie or a donut.
Also, the hot beverage credit applies to an item that costs up to
$6.19 plus taxes, including a brewed coffee, a hot latte, a hot
cappuccino, a hot espresso, a hot cortado, a hot tea or a hot
chocolate. [GN]
TMC THE METALS CO: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Caper Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
TMC the Metals Company Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on July 12, 2023,
an oral hearing on the motion to dismiss a shareholder putative
class action against the company was held. The parties are
currently awaiting a ruling.
On October 28, 2021, one of the company's executives and a former
director in federal district court for the Eastern District of New
York, captioned "Caper v. TMC The Metals Company Inc. (formerly
Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corp.), Gerard Barron and
Scott Leonard." The complaint alleges that all defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Messrs. Barron and Leonard violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose information about
its operations and prospects during the period from March 4, 2021
and October 5, 2021.
Said case has been consolidated and on March 6, 2022, a lead
plaintiff was selected. An amended complaint was filed on May 12,
2022, reflecting substantially similar allegations. The plaintiff
is seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the alleged
wrongdoings. On September 26, 2022, the motion to dismiss was fully
briefed.
TMC the metals company Inc. is a deep-sea minerals exploration
company focused on the collection and processing of polymetallic
nodules found on the seafloor in international waters of the
Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean), located
approximately 1,300 nautical miles southwest of San Diego,
California.
TMC THE METALS CO: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Tran Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TMC the Metals Company Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that on July 12, 2023,
an oral hearing on the motion to dismiss a shareholder putative
class action against the company was held. The parties are
currently awaiting a ruling.
On October 28, 2021, one of the company's executives and a former
director in federal district court for the Eastern District of New
York, captioned "Tran v. TMC the Metals Company, Inc." The
complaint alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Messrs. Barron and Leonard violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose information about its operations and prospects during the
period from March 4, 2021 and October 5, 2021.
Said case has been consolidated and on March 6, 2022, a lead
plaintiff was selected. An amended complaint was filed on May 12,
2022, reflecting substantially similar allegations. The plaintiff
is seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the alleged
wrongdoings. On September 26, 2022, the motion to dismiss was fully
briefed.
TMC the metals company Inc. is a deep-sea minerals exploration
company focused on the collection and processing of polymetallic
nodules found on the seafloor in international waters of the
Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean), located
approximately 1,300 nautical miles southwest of San Diego,
California.
TORONTO METROPOLITAN: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Semitic Events
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond and Diamond Lawyers have launched a class action lawsuit
addressing anti-Semitic events at three of Canada's prominent
post-secondary institutions: Toronto Metropolitan University,
Queens University and The University of British Columbia, with each
lawsuit seeking damages totalling $15 million.
The lawsuit represents both present Jewish students at each
university and alumni spanning back to 1998.
The defendants are alleged to have shown negligence, specifically
in failing to address anti-Semitic incidents, violating the
institution's non-discrimination policies and providing
insufficient staff training on handling harassment.
"Despite numerous notifications from the Plaintiffs about
anti-Semitic occurrences, the University consistently fails to take
substantial action, often merely offering superficial statements
without meaningful resolution," states Sandra Zisckind, Managing
Partner at Diamond and Diamond Lawyers. "Owning the campus space in
question, they are obligated to demonstrate accountability."
The Plaintiffs highlight a consistent pattern of behaviour
referencing past incidents on campus. In November 2022,
anti-Semitic graffiti, including a swastika on a fridge in a
residence where a Jewish student resided, was discovered on and off
the Queen's University campus. In 2015, Jewish students at TMU
reported anti-Semitic graffiti in a washroom urging Jews and their
allies to "burn in hell."
"Given these University's clear policies on the use and control of
its spaces and its acknowledged responsibility over faculty, staff,
and student organizations, the institution holds vicarious
liability for any actions or behaviours occurring on its premises
that contravene its values and standards," said Darryl Singer, head
of class actions at Diamond and Diamond Lawyers. "This lawsuit is
not driven by monetary objectives, but rather to ensure such
incidents do not recur."
Those who believe they have encountered anti-Semitism, and fit the
proposed class criteria, are urged to contact Diamond and Diamond
Lawyers immediately at 1-800-567-HURT. [GN]
TRI-COUNTY TELEPHONE: Class Suit Over Big Horn Basin Sale Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CJ Baker, writing for Thermopolis Independent Record, reports that
the Wyoming Supreme Court says a judge was right to throw out a
lawsuit that challenged the 2014 sale of a Big Horn Basin
telecommunications company.
A pair of former Tri-County Telephone Association board members
alleged that leaders conspired to sell the business for much less
than its worth, but District Court Judge Jason Conder tossed the
class action suit last year.
" . . . The undisputed facts demonstrate that no civil conspiracy
existed," Conder concluded.
He said the plaintiffs "loudly" and "feverishly" attacked the sale
process but didn't provide evidence to back up their claims.
The suit was filed in December 2015 by the late Joe Campbell -- the
lone TCT board member to oppose the deal -- and his wife Barbara;
former board member Bill Loveland later joined them in representing
the class of former co-op members.
The plaintiffs appealed Conder's ruling, but on Oct. 31, the
Supreme Court unanimously affirmed his decision, potentially
bringing an end to the long-running litigation.
TCT formed to provide telephone service to Burlington, Ten Sleep,
Hyattville and Hamilton Dome. But the nonprofit, member-owned
cooperative later expanded its services and reach, including
through its for-profit subsidiary TCT West.
While that brought TCT services to places like Powell, Cody, Lovell
and Basin, only those in the original service area were co-op
members.
In 2011, Meeteetse businessman Neil Schlenker tried to buy the
association for $11 million, which the TCT board rejected as too
low. However, Schlenker later made a revised offer; it culminated
in a $51 million deal that was presented to the co-op's members in
2014.
The Campbells, Loveland and others campaigned against the sale,
making many of the same arguments raised in the suit.
However, 652 of the co-op's 825 members (79%) voted to approve it
and the sale closed in December 2014.
A host of claims
Turning the member-owned co-op into a private company owned by
Schlenker's BHT Holdings involved a complicated "reverse triangular
merger" that was put together by the Cheyenne-based law firm
Hathaway & Kunz.
The suit alleged that taking the association private violated
Wyoming's statutes governing co-ops, but Conder disagreed; the
Wyoming Supreme Court said the plaintiffs' attorneys had
failed to properly raise the issue.
The bulk of the issues on appeal related to the allegations that
TCT leaders conspired with Schlenker to hide the association's true
value and mislead members.
However, TCT officials vehemently denied the allegations -- panning
the suit as "a disgruntled board member's pursuit of vengeance" --
and Conder said the plaintiffs didn't back up their claims with
evidence.
" . . . The plaintiffs must do more than repeat their allegations
and opinions," the judge wrote in dismissing a conspiracy claim.
"They must provide, by some measure of proof, evidentiary facts to
support their position, which they have failed to do."
The Supreme Court said Conder was right to dismiss the fraud
allegations, though they decided some of the issues on slightly
different grounds.
For example, the justices said the fact that Loveland and the
Campbells voted against
the sale undercut their claims that they were
defrauded.
"The class representatives stated they did not believe the alleged
misrepresentations, did not rely upon them, and had, in fact, tried
to counter them," Justice Keith Kautz wrote for the court. Kautz
said the plaintiffs failed to show that there were members who
voted for the sale and would have changed their vote if they knew
about the alleged misrepresentations.
Joe Campbell, who died in 2020, said in a prior deposition that he
was certain some members would have voted differently, but
acknowledged he "[didn't] know of any for sure."
As for an allegation that TCT leaders wrongfully
converted the members' profits in the co-op, Kautz said the claim
was misplaced.
"It was not the cooperative who sold the capital credits but rather
the members," who approved the deal by a more than two-thirds
margin, the justice wrote.
Loose ends
While the Oct. 31 decision stands to end the bulk of the case, some
issues remain.
For example, the plaintiffs previously secured a $200,000
settlement from Hathaway & Kunz, and those proceeds have yet to be
distributed.
Half of the settlement is slated to go to the co-op's former
members while the other $100,000 will go toward the costs of
bringing the case.
However, those figures could change, because, as the prevailing
party, TCT has asked Conder to order the plaintiffs to cover more
than $75,000 of the company's deposition costs.
The plaintiffs dispute that they should have to pay any of TCT's
costs but said any award should be taken out of the settlement
funds.
The $100,000 earmarked for the plaintiffs' costs is already going
to come up well short of the full bill, which had topped $400,000
by late 2021 and which doesn't include any attorneys fees.
Records included in court documents suggest that, at least in the
early goings of the litigation, TCT spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars on the case each year. [GN]
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over eCourts System
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaci Jones of Queen City News reports that there have been reports
of technical troubles with the eCourts system that is being used in
Mecklenburg County. The new eCourts system is at the center of a
class action lawsuit that claims people have been wrongfully
detained because of system glitches and outages.
The eCourts system was rolled out in Mecklenburg County on October
9, and there was already an outage that forced court staff to
return to paper temporarily. The latest outage happened on October
29, 2023 evening.
A spokesman from NC Courts says a software update caused a glitch
that stopped magistrates from inputting future court dates. The
glitch also delayed some people from being released from jail.
This new class action lawsuit claims the launch of the system has
led to people spending unnecessary time in jail violating their
constitutional rights.
Attorney Zack Ezor from Tin Fulton, Walker and Owen represents the
plaintiffs that include people from Mecklenburg County.
"What we've heard from Mecklenburg thus far, has been disappointing
and unsettling," Ezor said. "The problems that they're encountering
are of a kind that we saw in the pilot counties. You know one would
have hoped that with the experience of these counties going
earlier, the powers that be would have been able to identify those
issues and resolve them."
The software outage on October 29, 2023 lasted six hours, and
during that time, administrators went back to the paper system.
Ezor says delays for release in Mecklenburg County have been
widespread since early October.
"We have it on good authority that something like 60 people were
over-detained and just Mecklenburg in the first two weeks of the
launch and over-detained for substantial amounts of time," Ezor
said. "Some of those will be 12 hours; some are two or three days;
the longest I've heard about was like 70 hours."
Sheriff Garry McFadden is named as one of the defendants in the
class action suit. Sheriff McFadden says he has been doing his best
to correct problems as they arise in the system.
"This is not shocking, but I wish that we had more time to look at
it to see what could happen in this instance. I know that my staff
have to go back to some manual stuff to please the people and make
sure that we get through it and we are keeping a documented log of
all of the issues that we're having," McFadden said. "The district
attorney, the public defender's office, the clerk of court, the
detention center and my staff, we are working well together. I can
at least say that we are working well together. It's just a system
[that] is not working with us well."
Sheriff McFadden says the magistrates, office is feeling a lot of
the burden of the new system. The outage on October 29, 2023
stopped magistrates from entering future court dates. Sheriff
McFadden says his office is still dealing with staff shortages,
adding insult to injury.
"It's only one magistrate maybe working sometimes and if that
magistrate doesn't have the knowledge of what to do, then that
could have caused the delay, but think about that," Sheriff
McFadden said. "The magistrate has to also deal with the general
public who's being arrested and everything else going on and people
who coming to seek charges on someone else has to come to the
magistrate window."
Ezor says the software company, courts, sheriff and administrators
have an obligation to ensure people are not wrongfully detained
because of the eCourts system.
"This is an instance of somebody who pays a bond, you know, their
family gets the money together, and the lawyer goes into court and
gets them out, but then they're just not released, because there's
a miscommunication between two pieces of software, both are which
are provided by the same technology company," Ezor said. "So that's
really troubling."
In the six hours of the outage, magistrates went back to paper to
record future court dates. A spokesman for NC Courts tells Queen
City News that future court dates were updated electronically on
October 30, 2023 morning when the system was fixed. The software
company behind the eCourts program is Tyler Technology. The state
of North Carolina paid $100 million for the software. A public
affairs person from Tyler Technology directed us to the NC court
system when asked about why the technical glitch happened. [GN]
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit Over Data Breach Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that U-Haul
International Inc. secured a pre-trial win on most claims in a
proposed class action arising from a data breach that affected 2.2
million customers, but still must face claims under the California
Consumer Privacy Act, a federal court ruled.
Felicia Durgan, William Frierson, Michelle Anderson, and three
other plaintiffs failed to show in their amended complaint that
class members had suffered congnizable injury from the breach,
which was fatal to their claim of negligence, or that they relied
on the company's privacy policy before renting a vehicle, which was
fatal to their breach of implied contract claim, Judge Michael.
[GN]
UMPQUA BANK: Faces Elizondo Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
claims negligence on the part of Umpqua Bank is to blame for a data
breach this year that reportedly exposed the personal information
of current and former customers.
A proposed class action claims negligence on the part of Umpqua
Bank is to blame for a data breach this year that reportedly
exposed the personal information of current and former customers.
In an August 2023 notice letter sent to victims, the Oregon-based
bank admitted that it had been affected by a targeted cyberattack
involving MOVEit, a file transfer platform used by one of the
defendant's third-party IT vendors to store and move customer
data.
The 26-page lawsuit relays that between May 29 and May 30 of this
year, cybercriminals exploited a vulnerability in the MOVEit
software and gained unauthorized access to files containing
information belonging to Umpqua Bank customers. The data
compromised in the breach included individuals' names and Social
Security numbers, the suit reports.
The case argues that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps
to secure the customer information and neglected to ensure that its
IT vendor maintained adequate cybersecurity standards.
"Had Umpqua [Bank] ensured that its vendors implemented reasonable
data security systems and procedures (i.e., followed guidelines
from industry experts and state and federal governments), then it
likely could have prevented hackers from accessing its customers'
[personally identifiable information]," the complaint charges.
In addition, the filing contends that the bank's notice letter was
"intentionally misleading" and "ignore[d] the serious harm [the
defendant's] security flaws caused to the Class." As the lawsuit
tells it, the notice letter lacks crucial details about the
incident, such as how cybercriminals gained access to the system
and what steps are being taken to safeguard stored data in the
future.
The plaintiff, a California resident and Umpqua Bank customer, says
she received notice on August 15 of this year informing her that
her private information had been exposed in the breach. Like other
victims, the woman now faces a significant risk of identity theft,
fraud or other illegal misuse of her data as a result of the bank's
negligence, the case claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
data was accessed in the data breach experienced by Umpqua Bank.
[GN]
UNITED SERVICES: Must Response to Class Cert Bid by April 30, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a
married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting joint stipulation
to extend case schedule:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended
complaint is granted.
2. The November 17, 2023, hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
leave
to File Second Amended Complaint is vacated.
3. The Plaintiff is directed to file his Second Amended
Complaint
no later than November 3, 2023.
4. The Defendant is directed to answer or otherwise to respond
to
Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant no later than November
21,
2023.
5. The Plaintiff is directed to file any class certification
motion
no later than February 19, 2024.
6. The Defendant is directed to file its response to Plaintiff's
class certification motion no later than April 30, 2024.
7. The Plaintiff is directed to file any reply in support of his
motion for class certification no later than May 28, 2024.
8. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
set
for June 14, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.
9. All discovery, including discovery motions shall be filed and
have been heard by June 4, 2024. Discovery motions must be
filed
and heard prior to that date.
10. The Parties shall have until June 10, 2024, to conduct
settlement proceedings.
11. All other case calendar dates and deadlines are vacated.
12. After the Court's resolution of Plaintiff's class
certification
motion, at the Court's convenience, the Court will schedule a
status conference so that the Parties and the Court can set
additional case deadlines as needed.
United Services is an American financial services company providing
insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the
military, veterans, and their families.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47a0WYs at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Argueta Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILMER ARGUETA, v. UNITED
STATES, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00769-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Karoline Mehalchick recommended that:
1. The Defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment
be
granted;
2. Argueta's motion for class certification be denied as moot;
3. Argueta's motions to amend be denied; and
4. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action.
Pro se Plaintiff Argueta, a prisoner incarcerated in the United
States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, commenced this civil rights
action on May 23, 2022, by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
section 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA).
Argueta alleges that since January 31, 2022, he has been illegally
confined in the special management unit ("SHU") following a
national lockdown of MS-13 members.
The Plaintiff Argueta is a federal inmate who arrived at USP
Lewisburg on March 29, 2022, where he is serving a 188-month
sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland for conspiracy to participate in a
racketeering enterprise.
U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46WEzWO at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Farrell Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRILL FARRELL, JAMES
GONZALES, HAYDEN POWELL, JULIANNE "JULES" SOHN, STEPHAN "LILLY"
STEFFANIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; LLOYD J. AUSTIN
III, Secretary, United States Department of Defense, in his
official capacity; CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary, United States
Army, in her official capacity; CARLOS DEL TORO, Secretary, United
States Navy, in his official capacity; FRANK KENDALL, Secretary,
United States Air Force, in his official capacity; Case No.
3:23-cv-04013-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
certification of the proposed class and subclass, under Rule 23(a),
Rule 23(b)(2), Rule 23(d), and Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Rule 7-2 of the Civil Local Rules of the Court,
challenging ongoing constitutional violations against LGBTQ+
veterans discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and predecessor
policies.
In their Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs will seek an
order certifying a proposed "Sexual Orientation Indicator Class"
defined as:
"Veterans from all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces who have a
DD214 stating a narrative reason for separation or a separation
code that references sexual orientation as a reason for their
discharge.
They will also seek an order certifying a proposed subclass
"Discharge Upgrade Subclass" defined as:
"Sexual Orientation Indicator Class members who did not receive
an
Honorable discharge."
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the class and subclass under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(d) because
Defendants' conduct applies uniformly to the class and injunctive
relief is appropriate for the class as a whole.
The Plaintiffs will also request appointment of attorneys from
Legal Aid at Work, the Impact Fund, and King & Spalding LLP as
class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
United States Department of Defense is an executive branch
department of the federal government of the United States charged
with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the
U.S. government directly related to national security and the
United States Armed Forces.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MsjkUN at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth Kristen, Esq.
Lynnette Miner, Esq.
LEGAL AID AT WORK
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 864-8848
E-mail: ekristen@legalaidatwork.org
lminer@legalaidatwork.org
- and -
Jocelyn Larkin, Esq.
Lindsay Nako, Esq.
Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq.
Meredith Dixon, Esq.
IMPACT FUND
2080 Addison Street, Suite 5
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 845-3473
E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org
lnako@impactfund.org
fkorr@impactfund.org
mdixon@impactfund.org
- and -
David K. Willingham, Esq.
Rachel Yeung, Esq.
Chelsea Corey, Esq.
Radha Manthe, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4433
E-mail: dwillingham@kslaw.com
ryeung@kslaw.com
ccorey@kslaw.com
rmanthe@kslaw.com
VELODYNE LIDAR: Consolidated Suit Over SEC Disclosure Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ouster, 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 a consolidated shareholder suit
against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. is proceeding with discovery with
trial set for August 4, 2025. The company completed the merger with
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. on February 10, 2023.
On March 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of Velodyne filed a
complaint for a putative class action against Velodyne and its
executives Anand Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, entitled
"Moradpour v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al.," No. 3:21-cv01486-SI.
The complaint alleged purported violations of the federal
securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts about the company's business, operations
and prospects, including with respect to the role of Velodyne's
former CEO David Hall, and removal as Chairman of Velodyne's Board
of Directors. The complaint alleged that purported class members
have suffered losses and sought, among other things, an award of
compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne's securities between
November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021.
This and other class actions have been consolidated, lead
plaintiffs have been appointed and an amended consolidated
complaint was filed on September 1, 2021, based on allegations
similar to those in the earlier class actions. Velodyne filed a
motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint on
November 1, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on
February 11, 2022. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss on March 4,
2022. On July 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss as it
relates to the claims related to David Hall's role with Velodyne,
but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims.
Ouster, Inc. is a provider of high-resolution digital lidar sensors
that offer advanced 3D vision to machinery, vehicles, robots, and
fixed infrastructure assets, allowing each to understand and
visualize the surrounding world and ultimately enabling safe
operation and ubiquitous autonomy.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ouster, 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 a consolidated shareholder suit
against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. is proceeding with discovery with
trial set for August 4, 2025. The company completed the merger with
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. on February 10, 2023.
On March 12, 2021, a putative class action entitled "Reese v.
Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al.," No. 3:21-cv-01736-VC, was filed
against Velodyne, and its executives Anand Gopalan and Andrew Hamer
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California. The complaint alleged purported violations of the
federal securities laws and that, among other things, the
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material facts about the company's business,
operations and prospects, including with respect to the role of
Velodyne's former CEO David Hall, and removal as Chairman of
Velodyne's Board of Directors. The complaint alleged that purported
class members have suffered losses and sought, among other things,
an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne's securities
between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021.
This and other class actions have been consolidated, lead
plaintiffs have been appointed and an amended consolidated
complaint was filed on September 1, 2021, based on allegations
similar to those in the earlier class actions. Velodyne filed a
motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint on
November 1, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on
February 11, 2022. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss on March 4,
2022. On July 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss as it
relates to the claims related to David Hall's role with Velodyne,
but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims.
Ouster, Inc. is a provider of high-resolution digital lidar sensors
that offer advanced 3D vision to machinery, vehicles, robots, and
fixed infrastructure assets, allowing each to understand and
visualize the surrounding world and ultimately enabling safe
operation and ubiquitous autonomy.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit Over Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ouster, 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 a consolidated shareholder suit
against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. is proceeding with discovery with
trial set for August 4, 2025. The company completed the merger with
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. on February 10, 2023.
On March 19, 2021, a putative class action entitled "Nick v.
Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al.," No. 4:21-cv-01950-JST, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against Velodyne, and its executives Anand Gopalan and
Andrew Hamer and three other entities.
The complaint alleged purported violations of the federal
securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts about the company's business, operations
and prospects, including with respect to the role of Velodyne's
former CEO David Hall, and removal as Chairman of Velodyne's Board
of Directors. The complaint alleged that purported class members
have suffered losses and sought, among other things, an award of
compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne's securities between
November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021.
This and other class actions have been consolidated, lead
plaintiffs have been appointed and an amended consolidated
complaint was filed on September 1, 2021, based on allegations
similar to those in the earlier class actions. Velodyne filed a
motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint on
November 1, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on
February 11, 2022. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss on March 4,
2022. On July 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss as it
relates to the claims related to David Hall's role with Velodyne,
but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims.
Ouster, Inc. is a provider of high-resolution digital lidar sensors
that offer advanced 3D vision to machinery, vehicles, robots, and
fixed infrastructure assets, allowing each to understand and
visualize the surrounding world and ultimately enabling safe
operation and ubiquitous autonomy.
VILLAS OF HOLLY BROOK: Plaintiff Has Util Nov. 16 to File Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Villas of
Holly Brook Senior Living LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02269 (C.D. Ill.,
Filed Dec. 13, 2022), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered
an order on motion for extension of time to file response / reply:
-- Motion and R&R Deadlines / Hearings Defendant has until
November
9, 2023, to file its response to Plaintiff's motion to certify
class.
-- The Plaintiff has until Nov. 16, 2023, to file her reply.
The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Villas of Holly offers senior living, featuring independent,
assisted living, and memory care options.[CC]
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 1
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Class A common stock of Virtu Financial, Inc.,
(NASDAQ: VIRT) between November 7, 2018 and September 12, 2023,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit
has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than January 2, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Virtu Class A common stock during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Virtu class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16420 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2, 2024. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) detailed confidential trading
information from Virtu's execution services customers was
accessible to essentially everyone at Virtu via a widely known and
regularly shared generic username and password, including to
proprietary traders, who could abuse and benefit from that
information; (2) Virtu was unable to monitor which of its employees
logged into the trading information in Virtu Americas, LLC primary
database for daily business operations, as well as a backup
database (together, the "FS Database"), or what information was
viewed; (3) as a direct result of complaints by Virtu's traders
about the FS Database's capacity limits, Virtu increased the number
of users who could have simultaneous access; (4) Virtu failed to
take reasonable steps to prevent or even detect dissemination or
abuse of this trading information; and (5) Virtu's policies and
procedures were inadequate to prevent unauthorized use of trading
information from Virtu's execution services customers. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Virtu class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16420 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
VIRTU FINANCIAL: City of Birmingham Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIRTU
FINANCIAL, INC.; DOUGLAS CIFU; JOSEPH MOLLUSO; ALEX IOFFE; and SEAN
GALVIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08123 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31,
2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Virtu Class A common stock between November 7, 2018 and September
12, 2023, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
submitted the Forms 10-K and 10-Q with the SEC during the Class
Period were materially false and misleading when made because the
Defendants, in violation of SEC rules and regulations, failed to
disclose the risks, events, and uncertainties then known to
management, including the conduct that subjected Virtu to
contingent liabilities, including fines, reputational damage, civil
and/or criminal penalties, and/or other sanctions, that were
reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Virtu's
operating results.
As a result of the Defendants' actions, the price of Virtu Class A
common stock ultimately declined to a low of just over $17 per
share, more than 54 percent below the Class Period high, causing
the Plaintiff and the Class to suffer hundreds of millions of
dollars in losses and economic damages under the federal securities
laws, says the suit.
VIRTU FINANCIAL, INC. is a global financial services firm and
market maker that leverages technology to provide liquidity,
execution services and data, analytics and connectivity products to
its clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Mario Alba Jr. , Esq.
Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
malba@rgrdlaw.com
rgerson@rgrdlaw.com
[*] Gibson Dunn Provides 3Q 2023 Update on Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
This update provides an overview of key class action-related
developments during the third quarter of 2023 (July to September).
Part I summarizes an Eighth Circuit decision addressing waiver of
arbitration in putative class actions;
Part II covers a Fourth Circuit opinion analyzing the impact of
class action waivers on class certification proceedings;
Part III discusses a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit that
weighs in on certification of "issue" classes under Rule 23(c)(4);
And Part IV discusses two decisions reversing attorneys' fee awards
following class settlements.
I. The Eighth Circuit Holds Defendant Does Not Waive Right to
Arbitrate by Waiting Until After Class Certification to Move to
Compel Arbitration as to Absent Class Members
In H&T Fair Hills, Ltd. v. Alliance Pipeline L.P., 76 F.4th 1093
(8th Cir. 2023), landowners brought a putative class action against
a natural gas pipeline construction company, alleging the company
breached its easement contracts with the landowners. Although most
of these contracts contained an arbitration clause, some did not --
including the contracts with the named plaintiffs. Id. at 1097.
After the district court certified the class, the company moved to
compel arbitration of the claims of class members whose contracts
contained arbitration provisions. Plaintiffs objected, arguing the
company waived its right to compel arbitration because it "wait[ed]
more than two years after the complaint was filed" before moving to
compel as to the absent class members. Id. at 1098. The district
court nevertheless granted the motion to compel, highlighting that
the company "had no reason to raise arbitration as an affirmative
defense" given that none of the named plaintiffs had easement
contracts "subject to arbitration agreements." Id. at 1098-99.
The Eighth Circuit agreed, holding that the company did not waive
its right to arbitrate. "[N]one of the named plaintiffs . . . have
arbitration provisions in their easements," id. at 1100, and at
least until a class was certified, it made little sense to force a
defendant to compel arbitration as to absent class members --
"parties who were not yet part of the case." Id. The Eighth Circuit
concluded that the company "acted consistently with its right to
arbitrate" when it moved to compel arbitration "quickly after the
class was certified" as to those class members whose contracts
contained an arbitration provision. Id.
This holding contrasts with the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in
Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, 59 F.4th 457 (9th Cir. 2023),
which ruled that a defendant waived its right to compel arbitration
against unnamed class members due to the defendant's
pre-certification conduct. The court noted the defendant engaged in
over six years of pre-certification litigation, having never
mentioned a particular arbitration provision in its affirmative
defenses or opposition to class certification. Id. at 466. It was
only after the district court certified the class that the
defendant invoked that specific arbitration provision -- which, in
the Ninth Circuit's view, was too late. In so holding, the Ninth
Circuit rejected the argument pre-certification conduct can never
vitiate a yet-to-exist right to arbitrate, reasoning that parties
can implicitly relinquish such prospective rights at common law.
See Id. at 469-470 & n.15. The Ninth Circuit also found it
troublesome that the defendant had repeatedly asserted a right to
arbitrate under a newer version of its employment contract "without
also asserting the same" for the older version upon which it later
tried to compel arbitration. Id. at 473-74.
II. The Fourth Circuit Vacates Certification Where District Court
Failed to Consider Impact of Class Action Waiver Before Certifying
Classes
In In re Marriott International, Inc., 78 F.4th 677 (4th Cir.
2023), the Fourth Circuit addressed the impact of a contractual
class waiver on certification under Rule 23. The case involved
claims against a hotel chain and its IT service provider after
hackers allegedly breached a guest reservations database and gained
access to millions of guest records. Id. at 680.
After holding that the named plaintiffs had adequately alleged an
injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing, the district
court certified classes for monetary damages under Rule 23(b)(3).
Id. at 681. Defendants argued that the named plaintiffs did not
satisfy the typicality requirement because they were all members of
the hotel's guest rewards program, the terms of which included a
class action waiver. Id. at 682. By contrast, the class included
absent class members who were not rewards members, and thus "had
not signed such waivers." Id. To address these "serious typicality
concerns," the district court redefined the classes to include only
members of the guest rewards program. Id. The defendants sought
interlocutory review under Rule 23(f). Id. at 684-85.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred by
certifying classes "consisting entirely of plaintiffs who had
signed a putative class waiver without first addressing the import
of that waiver." Id. at 687. The court reasoned that the "time to
address a contractual class waiver is before, not after, a class is
certified." Id. at 686. In so holding, the court explained that a
"class-waiver" defense is not a merits issue, as it speaks only to
the "process available" to a plaintiff in pursuit of their claim,
and not the "underlying merits of that claim." Id. at 687. As a
result, the district court should have ruled on the effect of the
"[class] waiver defense before certifying a class." Id.
III. D.C. Circuit Holds Rule 23(c)(4) "Issue" Classes Must Still
Satisfy Rule 23(a) and Be Maintainable Under One Category of Rule
23(b)
Rule 23(c)(4) states that "[w]hen appropriate, an action may be
brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular
issues." Over the years, circuit courts have taken different
approaches as to when certification under Rule 23(c)(4) is
appropriate -- and in particular, whether Rule 23(c)(4) can be used
to skirt the predominance analysis under Rule 23(b)(3), since an
"issue" class will have, by definition, a common issue. This past
quarter, the D.C. Circuit addressed this issue and followed the
Fifth Circuit's approach of rigorously applying all of Rule 23's
requirements, even for classes sought to be certified under Rule
23(c)(4).
In Harris v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc., 77 F.4th 746
(D.C. Cir. 2023), medical transportation drivers brought a putative
class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), D.C.'s
wage-and-hour laws, and for common-law breach of contract against
their employer, alleging it failed to pay them their full wages.
Id. at 753-54. The plaintiffs also sought certification of a class
of drivers under Rule 23 for the wage claims. Id. at 754. The
district court found that although the plaintiffs met the
requirements of Rule 23(a), they failed to meet the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Id. The district court nonetheless
certified a Rule 23(c)(4) "issue" class on the issue of whether the
employer was a joint employer or a general contractor. Id. at
754-55.
After accepting the employer's interlocutory appeal, the D.C.
Circuit acknowledged that it had not yet addressed the question
whether an "issue" class "can be certified when no lawsuit or cause
of action has been certified as a class" and acknowledged the
circuit split on the issue, noting "[o]ther circuits have applied
Rule 23(c)(4) in a variety of ways." Id. at 756-57 (collecting
cases).
Siding with the approach first set out by the Fifth Circuit in
Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996), the
D.C. Circuit held that, under Rule 23, all certified classes --
including a Rule 23(c)(4) "issue" class -- must meet both the
threshold requirements of Rule 23(a) and be maintainable under one
of Rule 23(b)'s categories. Harris, 77 F.4th at 757. Noting "Rule
23's carefully calibrated limits on class certification," the D.C.
Circuit emphasized the importance of the predominance inquiry as
"an important safeguard against unreasonably fractured litigation,
[which] simultaneously protects the rights of named parties and
absent class members alike." Id. at 762. The D.C. Circuit concluded
that "district courts must ensure that Rule 23(c)(4)'s
authorization of issue classes does not end up at war with Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement," lest courts let plaintiffs
"effectively skirt the functional demands of the predominance
requirement by seeking certification of an overly narrow issue
class and then arguing that the issue (inevitably) predominates as
to itself." Id. (citing Castano, 84 F.3d at 745 n.21). The court
therefore vacated certification and remanded, instructing the
district court to explain "how the use of issue classes is
‘superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy'" (such as the alternative of
"deciding a partial summary judgment motion focused on the issues
proposed to be certified"). Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3)).
IV. Continuing Trend of Applying Greater Scrutiny to Class Action
Settlements, Seventh and Ninth Circuits Eschew Mechanical
Approaches to Calculating Attorneys' Fees and Reverse Class Counsel
Fees Awards
In Lowery v. Rhapsody International, Inc., 75 F.4th 985 (9th Cir.
2023), plaintiffs' counsel sought $1.7 million in attorneys' fees
based on a capped $20 million settlement fund with a claims rate of
less than 0.3% -- effectively, only a $50,000 recovery for the
class. Id. at 988, 990. The district court granted class counsel's
full fee award based on the "lodestar" method, and the defendant
appealed. Rejecting class counsel's arguments, the Ninth Circuit
held that attorneys' fees should be based on the actual -- and not
theoretical -- amount recovered by the class. Id. at 992. The court
elaborated that district courts awarding fees "must consider the
actual or realistically anticipated benefit to the class -- not the
maximum or hypothetical amount -- in assessing the value of a class
settlement" for purposes of evaluating the reasonableness of a fee
award. Id.
The Ninth Circuit ordered the district court on remand to
"disregard the theoretical $20 million settlement cap," and instead
focus on the amount actually claimed by the class because "[a]ny
other approach would allow parties to concoct a high phantom
settlement cap to justify excessive fees, even though class members
receive nothing close to that amount." Id. The court also
"encourage[d]" the district court "to cross-check the fees against
the benefit to the class and ensure that the fees are reasonably
proportional to that benefit." Id. at 993-94. In its view, the fact
that class counsel's fees "greatly exceed[ed] 25% of the value of
the settlement" was a "major red flag" signifying "that lawyers
[were] being overcompensated and that they achieved only meager
success for the class." Id. at 994. Lowery is a timely reminder to
parties litigating in the Ninth Circuit to prepare for the
possibility of heightened scrutiny of the class's recovery when
seeking approval of class settlements, particularly those with a
claims-made structure.
In In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, 80 F.4th 797, 800
(7th Cir. 2023), the Seventh Circuit vacated class counsel's $57.4
million fee award in an antitrust case based on a settlement fund
of $181 million. The district court considered whether the fees
represented the "market rate," and approved the award by relying on
evidence that fee awards in antitrust cases in the Seventh Circuit
"are almost always one-third" of the settlement value, which it
viewed as a "strong indication" that this represented the "market
rate." Id. at 801. The Seventh Circuit vacated the award, holding
that the district court's market rate "evaluation fell short in two
areas: the consideration of bids made by class counsel in auctions,
and the weight assigned to out-of-circuit decisions." Id. at 802.
As to the first area, the Seventh Circuit faulted the district
court for discounting recent bids submitted by class counsel in
other cases with declining fee award structures, believing such
declining fee award structures "do not reflect market realities"
and "create perverse incentives" by reducing attorneys' incentives
to seek a larger recovery. Id. at 803. The Seventh Circuit
disagreed, clarifying that it "never categorically rejected
consideration of bids with declining fee scale award structures"
and that these prior auction bids by class counsel in other cases
were probative of the hypothetical bargain that could have been
struck ex ante. Id. at 802-03.
As to the second area, the Seventh Circuit disapproved of the
district court's decision to give less weight to fee awards
received by the same class counsel in Ninth Circuit cases because
the relevant law governing fee awards differed in some meaningful
ways from Seventh Circuit law. Id. at 804. The Seventh Circuit held
that even if Ninth Circuit law differed, class counsel's economic
choice to continue litigating in those Ninth Circuit cases was
informative of the price of their legal services and the bargain
they may have struck in this case. Id.
On remand, the court instructed the district court to reevaluate
the bargain the parties would have struck ex ante while giving
appropriate consideration and weight to the two additional factors.
Id. at 805. The court "express[ed] no preference as to the amount
or structure of the award," but said that an attorney fee award of
one-third of the net settlement "warrants greater explanation."
Id.
The following Gibson Dunn lawyers contributed to this client
update: Lauren Fischer, Timothy Kolesk, Psi Simon,* Wesley Sze,
Lauren Blas, Bradley Hamburger, Kahn Scolnick, and Christopher
Chorba..
Gibson Dunn attorneys are available to assist in addressing any
questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact
the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work in the firm's
Class Actions, Litigation, or Appellate and Constitutional Law
practice groups, or any of the following lawyers:
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7000,
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher Chorba - Co-Chair, Class Actions Practice Group - Los
Angeles (+1 213-229-7396, cchorba@gibsondunn.com)
Theane Evangelis - Co-Chair, Litigation Practice Group, Los Angeles
(+1 213-229-7726, tevangelis@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren R. Goldman - New York (+1 212-351-2375,
lgoldman@gibsondunn.com)
Kahn A. Scolnick - Co-Chair, Class Actions Practice Group - Los
Angeles (+1 213-229-7656, kscolnick@gibsondunn.com)
Bradley J. Hamburger - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7658,
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren M. Blas - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7503,
lblas@gibsondunn.com)
*Psi Simon is an associate practicing in the firm's San Francisco
office who is not yet admitted to practice law. [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 ***