/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231123.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 23, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 235
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Peters Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Port Arthur Sues Over Contamination of Land
3M COMPANY: Schenfield Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Sprow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Transue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ACELYRIN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16
ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE: Garza Sues Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
ALASKA: Denis Religious Accommodations for Muslims, Suit Says
ALLEN GWYNN: Faces Hovian Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
ASIA TV USA: Shah Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info
ASPYR MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Video Game Class Action
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec 7
BEAUTY HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16
BEAUTY HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16
BHI ENERGY: Wever Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
BILLINGS, MT: Residents Set to Get Rebate on Illegal Franchise Fees
BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
BLUE CROSS: 11th Cir. Upholds $2.67BB Class Action Settlement
BLUE CROSS: Sued for Allegedly Sharing Federal Employees' Data
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Residents Sued Over Toxic Chemicals
COACH USA: Faces Class Action Over Religious Discrimination
COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Claims Can't Enforce Arbitration Clause
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Jewish Students Sue Over Antisemitism
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Burian Labor Suit in New York Court Settled
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court OK's De Benning Labor Suit Settlement
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Dimas Labor Suit in California Court
CROFT & FROST: Faces Class Action After Sudden Shutdown
CTVALENCIA INC: Donis Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
DONOTPAY INC: Averts False Advertising Class Action
DSM-FIRMENICH AG: Fragrance Price-Fixing Class Action Pending
E&P FINANCIAL: Settles Customers' Class Action for $16MM
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss FCRA Ruling
EXPRESS INC: McCall Sues Over False Reference Pricing Scheme
FADU TECHNOLOGY: Hannuri Law to File Class Action Over IPO
FIRSTENERGY CORP: 6th Cir. OKs Petition for Interlocutory Review
FLEXPRO MEALS: Williams Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FLOSPORTS INC: Settles Subscription Class Action for $2.625MM
FMC CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 8
FORD MOTOR: 6th Circuit Reviews Brake Defect Class Action
FUTURE ELECTRONICS: Orenstein Victims' Lawyer Wants Assets Frozen
GUARANTEED RATE: Peters Seeks Mortgage Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages
GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violations
HEALTH NET: December 22 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
HENKEL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Laundry Detergent
HOTCHKISS SCHOOL: Moe Sues Over Alleged Sexual Abuse
ILLUMINA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 9
JAMES RIVER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 12
KFC CORP: Fails to Provide 10-Minute Rest Breaks, Class Suit Says
KIA AMERICA: Must Face Insurers' Claims Over Theft-Prone Cars
KLM ROYAL: Faces Suit Over Misleading Sustainability Statements
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Use of Tracking Tools
MARYLAND: AARP Foundation File Class Action v. Home Care Agency
MASSMUTUAL ASCEND: Gerbman Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
META PLATFORMS: Lake Forest Districts to Join Mental Health Suit
META PLATFORMS: Must Face Class Action Over Addictive Platforms
MR. COOPER: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
NATIIONAL FOOTBALL: Violates Injury Report Policy, Class Suit Says
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER : Nigel Farage Turns His Claim Into Class Suit
NATURE'S PATH: Miller Sues Over Snack Products' False Labeling
NEW ERA FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zarate Suit Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Mayor Issues EO on Nunez Use-of-Force Class Action
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
NUSCALE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16
NUTANIX INC: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit in CA Court
OCEAN SPRAY: Faces Wright Suit Over Mislabeled Juice Products
PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 9
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Enriquez Sues Over Phenylephrine's False Ads
RABOBANK NA: Dead Lead Plaintiff Suit Litigated As If He Were Alive
REVCORE RECOVERY: Norfleet Sues Over Counselors' Unpaid OT
SALEM HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Use of Tracking Tools
SALEM HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Improper IV Procedures
SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Feb. 2023 Data Breach
SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Kobor Alleges
SONY ENTERTAINMENT: Data Breach Class Action Pending
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Workers' OT, Roper Says
TERRAVITA EDGEWATER: Romero Sues Over Kitchen Workers' Unpaid OT
TETHER LTD: Judge Tosses Class Action Over USDT Stablecoin
THRILL KOREAN: Truesdail Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
TJM SYRACUSE: Appeals Summary Judgment in Jocko Labor Suit
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Use of AI
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Antisemitism Practices
WALGREEN CO: Hyland Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Sunscreen
WALGREENS CO: Agrees to Settle Blood Testing Suit for $45.33MM
WILL COUNTY, IL: Part of Foreclosure Filing Class Action Revived
*********
3M COMPANY: Peters Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Peters, 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-05562-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 2, 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: Port Arthur Sues Over Contamination of Land
-------------------------------------------------------
City of Port Arthur, Texas, 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-05600-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 3,
2023), is brought against the Defendants alleging theories of
trespass, nuisance, negligence, wantonness, fraudulent concealment,
breach of warranty, and strict liability for environmental and
economic injuries, contamination and unlawful incursion onto the
Plaintiff's land, surface and subsurface soil, sediment, natural
resources, municipal and real property caused by releases of
fluorinated Class B firefighting foams manufactured with synthetic
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or chemicals (collectively and
hereafter referred to as "PFAS").
In this complaint, the term ("PFAS") refers to a family of
synthetic man-made chemicals and surfactants including but not
limited to: Perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorohexanoic acid
("PFHxA"), Perfluoropentanoic acid ("PFPA"), Perfluoroheptanoic
acid ("PFHpA"), Pentafluorobenzoic acid ("PFBA"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorodecacanoic acid ("PFDA") and Perfluorohexane
Sulfonic Acid ("PFHS"). In this complaint, the term Aqueous
Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") refers to any fluorinated firefighting
foams that contains PFOS and/or PFOA (including any of their salt,
ionic or acid forms and their precursors or degradation products)
manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants for civilian,
military and training applications worldwide.
PFOS and PFOA are synthetic fluorinated compounds that are
particularly useful for controlling and extinguishing aviation,
marine, fuel, and other Class B fires because fluorine atoms have
extremely persistent and stable physio-chemical properties. PFOS
and PFOA are soluble in water, not easily biodegradable, and
persistent in the environment. Both are known to be harmful to
human health. When AFFF containing PFOS or PFOA is released into
the environment; both compounds, their precursors and degradation
products, can migrate into soil and groundwater. It has been shown
that the bioconcentration and bioaccumulation of perfluorinated
acids is directly related to fluorination.
AFFF is a specialized manufactured foam designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training exercises and
live-fire responses. PFOA and PFOS are extremely toxic, not easily
biodegradable, persistent in the environment and pose a significant
risk to animal and human health.
For several years Defendants, including Chemours, have shipped PFAS
waste to Port Arthur for deep well injection, including nearly 90
million gallons in 2019. It is probable that more widespread
contamination has occurred. Given the extensive use of the
fluorinated AFFF by military and civilian firefighters, upon
information and belief, additional municipal owned property is
likewise contaminated with these toxic compounds.
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,
defendant 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.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
The Defendants failed to warn individuals, communities,
municipalities, or states of the serious environmental, human, and
animal toxicity concerns linked to the use and exposure to
fluorinated AFFF foams. Because the Defendants knowingly placed
defective and dangerously toxic fluorinated AFFF foams into the
stream of commerce they are strictly liable to the Plaintiff for
causing the release of toxic PFAS compounds onto the City's
municipal lands and its surface and subsurface soil.
The Defendants sold, manufactured, and distributed AFFF containing
fluorinated surfactants touting the superior firefighting
performance for decades and deliberately chose not to warn end
users or purchasers of the potential environmental or human
toxicity concerns linked to fluorinated compounds. Because the
Defendants negligently caused the release of toxic PFAS compounds
onto the City's municipal lands and its surface and subsurface soil
they are all jointly and severally liable, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the City of Port Arthur, a Texas municipal
corporation, who brings this action on behalf of itself and in its
sovereign capacity, as a trustee, for the benefit of its citizens
and natural resources.
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:
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
- and -
Nomaan K. Husain, Esq.
HUSAIN LAW + ASSOCIATES, PC
5858 Westheimer, Suite 400
Houston, TX 77057
Phone: (713) 800-1200
Facsimile: (713) 800-0786
E-serve: eserve@hlalawfirm.com
- and -
Michael R. Harris, Esq.
1200 Smith St., Suite 1550
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 398-1264
Facsimile: (713) 980-0510
Email: mharris@theharrislawfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Schenfield Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
--------------------------------------------------------
Reed Schenfield, 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-05559-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 2, 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: Sprow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Sprow, Jr., 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-05558-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 2, 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: Transue Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Transue, 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-05556-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 2, 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
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma 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
ACELYRIN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Nov. 16 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ACELYRIN, Inc.
("ACELYRIN" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SLRN) securities between May
4, 2023 and September 11, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the Company's investors under
the federal securities laws.
Acelyrin is a clinical biopharma company that focuses on developing
and commercializing transformative medicines. The Company's lead
product candidate is izokibep, a small protein therapeutic designed
to inhibit IL-17A with purportedly high potency, which is currently
in Part B of a Phase 2b/3 clinical trial for use in the treatment
of moderate to severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa ("HS").
The Complaint alleges that on April 13, 2023, Acelyrin filed a
registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with
the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on May 4, 2023 (the
"Registration Statement"). The Complaint further alleges that on
May 4, 2023, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Acelyrin's
common stock began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Global Select
Market ("NASDAQ") under the trading symbol "SLRN".
Additionally, the Complaint alleges that on May 5, 2023, Acelyrin
filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with
the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration
Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the Registration
Statement, the "Offering Documents").
The Complaint also alleges that pursuant to the Offering Documents,
Acelyrin issued 30 million shares of its common stock to the public
at the Offering price of $18.00 per share for proceeds to the
Company of $502.2 million after applicable underwriting discounts
and commissions.
The Complaint additionally alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
izokibep was less effective in treating HS than Defendants had led
investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, Acelyrin overstated
izokibep's clinical and/or commercial prospects; (iii) as a result,
Acelyrin also overstated the Company's business prospects post-IPO;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The Complaint further alleges that on September 11, 2023, after the
markets closed, Acelyrin announced disappointing top-line results
from Part B of the Phase 2b/3 trial evaluating izokibep for the
treatment of moderate-to-severe HS. Specifically, izokibep failed
to show statistically significant reduction in abscesses and
inflammatory nodules in patients as compared to placebo.
The Complaint goes on to allege that on this news, Acelyrin's stock
price fell $17.19 per share, or 61.61%, over the following two
trading sessions, to close at $10.71 per share on September 13,
2023.
The Complaint lastly alleges that as a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of Acelyrin's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of ACELYRIN
should contact the Firm prior to the January 16, 2024 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE: Garza Sues Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAISY GARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE CINEMAS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05719 (N.D. Cal., November 6, 2023) arises from
the Defendant's unlawful disclosure of its customers' sensitive
private information to unrelated third parties without written
consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Alamo's website has tracking pixels
that secretly and surreptitiously send consumers' personally
identifiable information to third-party providers -- every time
consumers purchase a movie ticket. Through these tracking pixels,
companies like Facebook, TikTok, Google, Trade Desk, and AdRoll
collect the titles of the movies consumers purchased tickets to
see, along with the cinema locations where those movies aired. Some
of these tracking pixels include unique user ID numbers that these
companies use to identify particular individuals and link them to
their movie metadata.Other tracking pixels identify particular
individuals and link them to their movie metadata by also
collecting their browsers' IP addresses and cross referencing that
with other websites that individual's IP address visited. The
third-party providers, in turn, use Plaintiff and Class Members'
video consumption habits to build profiles on consumers and deliver
targeted advertisements to them, among other activities, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Austin, TX, Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC, Inc.
owns and operates a ticket-purchasing platform that is used
throughout California and the United States. The company also has
theaters in California and throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
ALASKA: Denis Religious Accommodations for Muslims, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Barker, writing for Alaska Native News, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska, with co-counsel
Howard Anderson of Truluck Thomason LLC, has filed a class action
lawsuit against the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) for the
denial of religious accommodations for Muslim people detained at
Anchorage Correctional Center (ACC).
This lawsuit is filed on behalf of William 'Jamal' Gary, a
practicing Muslim who has been in pre-trial custody at ACC since
February 2022. ACC staff have refused him permission to wear his
kufi, have refused to accommodate his prayer needs, and have made
repeated anti-Muslim comments towards Gary. Gary is bringing this
class action on behalf of all current and future Muslims detained
at ACC.
DOC has violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act and has unconstitutionally infringed on equal
protection guarantees and religious freedom rights under the U.S.
and Alaska Constitutions.
"Mr. Gary's case is a blatant example of DOC and its staff failing
to meet the constitutional rights of incarcerated Alaskans," said
Melody Vidmar, staff attorney for the ACLU of Alaska. "Not only
were Mr. Gary's religious requests reasonable, but they are well
within his rights. Incarcerated and detained people do not leave
their religion at the jailhouse doors, nor do they leave their
constitutional rights behind either."
Originally, Gary and other Muslim detainees were permitted to wear
a kufi in all parts of the ACC. But ACC has, for over a year,
required them to have their heads uncovered outside the housing
unit, citing security reasons, despite Gary offering to have his
kufi searched. ACC staff have never searched his kufi. Other DOC
facilities permit inmates to wear religious headwear throughout the
facilities, making ACC an outlier within the DOC. ACC officers have
also refused to allow Gary to attend his medical appointments for a
broken hand unless he keeps his kufi off. Gary has declined to do
so, and the pain in his hand is ongoing. [GN]
ALLEN GWYNN: Faces Hovian Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA HOVIAN, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiff v. ALLEN GWYNN CHEVROLET INC., JIM
BACON, NICK NAZARIAN, AND DOES 1 Through 20, Inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 23GDCV02312 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' willful violations of the California
Labor Code, and the orders and standards promulgated by the
California Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay for all time
worked, including at least the state-mandated minimum wages for all
hours worked; failure to pay all wages due; failure to pay all
wages due upon termination of the employment; failure to provide
with rest and meal periods; and failure to pay proper wages and/or
provide required working conditions.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a car
salesperson in Los Angeles County starting on February 6, 2023, and
Plaintiff's last day of employment being on July 21, 2023.
Allen Gwynn Chevrolet Inc. is a Chevrolet dealer in Glendale,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mac E. Nehoray, Esq.
Kambiz Drake, Esq.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, APC
24007 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 110
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 222-2227
ASIA TV USA: Shah Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------
PANKAJ SHAH and VIPUL AGGARWAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASIA TV USA LIMITED and
ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-21722 (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2023) is a class action suit
against the Defendants for violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.
Defendant Zee Entertainment develops, owns, and operates the Zee5
App and the Zee5.com website. The U.S.-based operations of the Zee5
Video Service are managed by Defendant Asia TV, which is a
subsidiary of Defendant Zee Entertainment.
According to the complaint, Zee knowingly and intentionally
discloses Zee5 Video Service users' personally identifiable
information -- including a record of every video viewed by the user
-- to unrelated third parties unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and members
of the Class.
On behalf of themselves and the App Class, Plaintiffs seek: (i)
declaratory relief; (ii) injunctive and equitable relief as is
necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and the App Class
by requiring Defendants to comply with VPPA's requirements for
protecting consumers' PII; (iii) statutory damages of $2,500 for
each violation of the VPPA; and (iv) reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and other litigation expenses.
Asia TV USA Limited operates as a local television broadcasting
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
ASPYR MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Video Game Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Totilo, writing for Axios Gaming, reports that a class
action complaint over a Star Wars video game's missing content
should be dismissed in part because the lead plaintiff already got
a rebate, the game's developer has argued in court.
Why it matters: The novel suit is seeking damages because a game
maker didn't deliver on the promise they offered when promoting
their game.
Details: The case, Malachi Mickelonis v. Aspyr Media, Inc.,
revolves around the cancellation of the "Restored Content DLC," a
free update that had been planned for the 2022 Nintendo Switch
re-release of beloved 2004 role-playing game Star Wars: Knights of
the Old Republic II.
The update would have restored storyline content that was
infamously cut before the original game shipped. Those missing bits
have so far been available only on the PC version via a mod made by
fans who salvaged the content from the game's code.
Aspyr announced in June it was canceling the DLC, and offered
download codes for other Star Wars games to compensate.
In July Mickelonis sued, saying he "felt completely duped" and
sought damages over alleged violations of California consumer law.
Late last month, the suit was modified to include 17 more
plaintiffs.
Driving the news: Aspyr Media asked a court last month and this
month to toss out the suit, according to court filings reviewed by
Axios.
Aspyr's position is that they already provided relief to the
plaintiffs when KOTOR II Switch owners were offered an extra game.
"All were offered a replacement product worth more than the one
they purchased and none requested a refund," the publisher's
lawyers say in a filing this month.
In their filings, Aspyr shows that Mickelonis requested and
received a code for another game to compensate for the nixed DLC.
The intrigue: Aspyr has never said why the DLC was canceled. But in
a court filing, the company's co-CEO Ted Saloch said, "Aspyr
believed it would be able to release the content, but a third party
objected and Aspyr was unable to do so."
It's unclear who that third party was.
What's next: A hearing on Aspyr's motion to dismiss the case is set
for the end of the month. [GN]
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 17
announced the reopening of the lead plaintiff appointment process
in a class action lawsuit against Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.
("Axsome" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AXSM) and certain of its
officers. The Class Action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under
22-cv-03925 (LGS), is proposed to be brought on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Axsome common stock between May 10,
2021 and April 22, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws. Excluded from the proposed Class will be
any persons who sold all of the shares acquired during the Class
Period prior to April 25, 2022. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 7, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Axsome 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 Axsome class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2221 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 December 7, 2023.
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. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. 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 proposed Second Amended
Complaint, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Axsome's chemistry,
manufacturing, and control ("CMC") practices were deficient with
respect to AXS-07 and its manufacturing process; (2) Axsome was
unable to resolve these CMC problems or complete stability studies
on additional batches of AXS-07 before it belatedly (after repeated
delays in the initially represented timeline) submitted its AXS-07
New Drug Application ("NDA") in June 2021; (3) accordingly, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration was unlikely to approve the
AXS-07 NDA; (4) as a result of all the foregoing, Axsome had
overstated AXS-07's regulatory and commercial prospects; and (5) as
a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Axsome class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2221 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.
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 Information:
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]
BEAUTY HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired The Beauty Health Company (NASDAQ: SKIN)
securities between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023. Beauty
Health is a health and beauty company which provides "skin health
experiences."
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: The Beauty Health Company (SKIN) Misled
Investors Regarding its Business Prospects
According to the complaint, on November 13, 2023, after the market
closed, Beauty Health announced its financial results for the third
quarter of 2023. The Company disclosed that "[t]he quarter was
overshadowed by lower-than-expected U.S. revenue and $63.1 million
in restructuring charges related to device upgrades of early
generation Syndeo devices." As a result, "the Company is revising
its fiscal year 2023 net sales guidance to a range of $385 to $400
million, its fiscal year adjusted EBITDA margin guidance to a range
of 5% to 6% and is suspending its long-term 2025 financial
outlook." The Company further disclosed that Andrew Stanleick would
depart the Company as President and Chief Executive Officer and
relinquish his Board seat, effective November 19, 2023. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $2.51, or 64.36%, to close at
$1.39 per share on November 14, 2023, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices had issues
leading to "frequent treatment interruptions;" (2) as a result, the
Company incurred significant costs to develop enhancements; (3)
despite the enhancements, providers continued to experience issues
with the Syndeo devices; (4) as a result, the Company would no
longer market Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices and incur significant
inventory writedowns; and finally, (5) as a result, the Company's
profitability would be adversely impacted.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against The Beauty Health Company.
Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class should
contact Robbins LLP. Plaintiffs must file their lead plaintiff
papers by January 16, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
BEAUTY HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 17
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of The Beauty Health Company (NASDAQ:
SKIN) between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 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 16, 2024. [GN]
BHI ENERGY: Wever Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------
KIM R. WEVER and TED MELTON, on behalf of themselves individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BHI
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and BHI ENERGY I SPECIALTY SERVICES LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12626 (D. Mass., Oct. 31, 2023) arises
from BHI's failure to protect and secure the highly sensitive
personally identifiable information and protected health
information of Plaintiffs and the Class resulting to a massive and
preventable data breach.
On June 29, 2023, BHI discovered that an unauthorized third-party
gained access to Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PHI/PII through
BHI's inadequately protected computer network. Although the breach
was discovered in June 2023, BHI did not begin to notify victims of
the data breach that their PII and PHI was accessed by
cybercriminals until in or around October 2023 -- approximately
four months later, the suit says.
The Defendants' misconduct -- failing to timely implement adequate
and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs' and Class members'
private information, failing to timely detect the data breach,
failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the data breach,
failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have
adequate security practices in place to safeguard the private
information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of
the data breach -- caused substantial harm and injuries to
Plaintiffs and Class members across the United States, alleges the
suit.
BHI Services LLC provides services and staffing solutions to the
nuclear, fossil, hydro, wind, and solar generation power
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
BILLINGS, MT: Residents Set to Get Rebate on Illegal Franchise Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Ehrlick, writing for Daily Montanan, reports that more than
six years of litigating "franchise fees" charged by Montana's
largest city to its residents resulted in nearly 90,000 pages of
documents during the lengthy and complex court case.
It has also resulted in a judgment that could see more than 30,000
residents get rebates or checks -- yet to be calculated -- for the
fees that the city charged, which a court later agreed amounted to
an illegal sales tax scheme.
Terry Odegard told Yellowstone County Court Judge Mike Salvagni
that he had boxes of documents at his home stacked up, the
accumulation of years of literally fighting city hall.
"I am not a lawyer, but when I heard one city council member who
wouldn't support the city's budget because of it, I looked into and
read the (Montana Supreme Court) Mondak decision. It looked like to
me what the city was doing was illegal," Odegard told the court.
He and the others began fighting the city on franchise fees even
before they found a lawyer. The group was one day shy of the case
being settled on the sixth anniversary of the group coming together
-- Nov. 17, 2017.
During the six-year journey that included a group of Billings
residents, three of the original class-action representatives have
died. Odegard told Salvagni the case has been ongoing for 2,180
days by his calculation.
"For some of our class representatives," said class attorney
Matthew Monforton, "it was the last thing they did before they
died."
"There's an old adage that you don't fight city hall," he said.
"For them, they fought and fought for this decision and there are
thousands of Billings residents who will be better off for it."
On Nov. 16, a final hearing was held to finalize the details of the
settlement, which includes a $3.6 million award spread among
thousands of residents, after the class' attorneys' fees are
subtracted. That figure totals $917,000 in attorneys' fees and
awards.
Because the number of households the large class-action suit
involves, it won't be clear for several months the exact dollar
amount some should see, but for many who have the City of Billings
provide water, wastewater and garbage disposal, they could see
either a rebate check or a credit of around $90 total, the lawyers
told the court on Nov. 16.
Attorneys for both sides agreed that the original sum that was
floated for a settlement was much higher, ranging in the tens of
millions of dollars because the city had been charging franchise
fees for more than a decade. But during the lengthy court process,
that number was winnowed down covering the previous three years
from the time the City of Billings stopped charging the fee, on May
14, 2018 -- two days before the class-action suit was filed in
district court. That means only Billings residents who were paying
for city services during that three-year period between 2015 and
2018 are eligible for the reimbursement or credit. And, a credit
will be applied for residents who are still rate-paying customers
in Billings, while those who are no longer customers or have moved
will receive a check reimbursement.
The order, which will officially mark the end of litigation and the
beginning of the settlement process, will be signed before the end
of this week, Salvagni told the court.
The City of Billings has been represented by Doug James and Bryce
Burke of Moulton Bellingham. The City of Billings told the Daily
Montanan that through October 2023, the city has paid $985,881 in
attorneys' fees to the law firm to defend itself in the
class-action case.
Meanwhile, class attorney Matthew Monforton will receive $892,000
for his work on the six-year case. However, Kristen Juras began the
class-action case with him as co-counsel. She left the case to
campaign alongside Greg Gianforte as they ran on the Republican
ticket and eventually won the governor's office in 2020. Juras
currently serves as the lieutenant governor. How the proceeds will
split between the two lawyers isn't clear; Juras dropped the case
early on during its litigation.
Originally, the City of Billings argued franchise fees were a fair
charge to customers in order to use the public's right-of-way for
utilities, and to offset costs associated with delivering utility
services to residents. The charge on bills usually represented 3%
to 5% of the total, and the class representatives argued the fee
was nothing more than a sales tax meant to cushion city coffers.
As part of the monetary settlement, the agreement also includes a
permanent agreement that Billings will never charge franchise fees
again. The City of Billings estimates that it took in roughly $2.5
million per year in franchise fees, according to court documents.
"It was important for the class representatives that they not be in
a situation where they're right back here again," Monforton said.
[GN]
BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pryor v. Blackhawk
Network, Inc. (BLACKHAWK NETWORK DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No.
3:22-cv-07084-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement
entered into by Plaintiffs and Blackhawk.
In October 2022, Blackhawk began sending notice to 165,727
individuals whose names and payment card information were
potentially accessed by an unauthorized third party that placed
malicious code on Defendant's website.
The Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Complaint on February
9, 2023, alleging Negligence, Breach of Implied Contract, Unjust
Enrichment, Violations under the California Unfair Competition Law,
Cal Bus. & Prof Code §§ 17200, et seq., Violations under the
California Consumer Privacy Act, Deceit by Concealment, and
Violations under Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
After a full-day mediation and an extensive Settlement negotiation
process lasting several months, the Parties have reached a proposed
Settlement that provides for the creation of a Settlement Fund of
$985,000.00 which will be used to provide each Class Member with
several direct cash benefits including:
-- reimbursement for any valid Out-of-Pocket losses fairly
traceable
to the Data Breach up to $5,000;
-- a payment of $200 for California Settlement Subclass Members
who
submit a valid claim in compensation for their statutory
claims
available under California Law; and
-- all Class Members who make a valid claim will receive a cash
payment consisting of a pro-rata share of the remainder of the
Settlement Fund.
A. The Settlement Class
The Settlement Class includes all individuals within the
United
States whose names and personally identifiable and payment
card
information were potentially exposed to unauthorized third
parties as a result of Defendant’s Data Security Incident
that
occurred in approximately September of 2022.
Excluded from the Settlement Class is any judge presiding over
the Litigation and their first-degree relatives, judicial
staff,
and persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class.
Blackhawk provides prepaid and financial payments products for
consumers and businesses.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3snBUGO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Laura Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Justin C. Walker, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jwalker@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
BLUE CROSS: 11th Cir. Upholds $2.67BB Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Cammayo, writing for The Bolton Blog, reports that after
an appeal effort, the 11th Circuit has upheld the $2.67 billion
settlement in the massive class action lawsuit against the Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA).
Barring some other unforeseen development, this means employers who
previously filed claims for their share of the settlement proceeds
should start receiving payments sometime in the first part of 2024.
The official BCBS settlement website --
https://www.bcbssettlement.com/ -- indicates that claimants should
check back in February 2024 for additional updates.
Note: the deadline to file a claim expired November 5, 2021
Employers who receive such settlement proceeds should be aware that
a portion of those funds may be plan assets under ERISA if
employees contributed towards the cost of the health plan during
the time period covered by the settlement, and the employer may
need to share the proceeds with health plan participants. [GN]
BLUE CROSS: Sued for Allegedly Sharing Federal Employees' Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, report that a
proposed class action claims Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS)
Association secretly transmits federal employees' private medical
data to TikTok, Facebook and other third parties without consent
through its website, FEPBlue.org.
The 67-page lawsuit says that despite serious national security and
privacy concerns with regard to TikTok, BCBS, which provides health
insurance to more than 5.5 million federal workers and retirees at
every level of the U.S. government, has "inexplicably" embedded
invisible tracking tools from the social media company and other
third parties into its website. According to the suit, the
web-tracking technologies used on FEPBlue.org secretly capture and
record federal employees' online communications and activities in
real time as they interact with the pages.
In the past few years, a number of federal agencies have taken
steps to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive
government data to TikTok, the case explains, citing fears that the
social media giant's China-based parent company is "controlled by
or would be forced to share information with the Chinese
government."
"Given widespread concerns in recent years over TikTok's aggressive
data-collection practices and the company's close ties to China,
TikTok has been banned on official government devices for Members
of the U.S. House of Representatives, executive branch employees,
and federal contractors," the complaint shares.
State and local governments nationwide have instituted similar
TikTok bans on official devices, and national security authorities
have likewise warned about the social media company's bold
data-tracking behavior, the filing adds.
In spite of the foregoing, FEPBlue.org utilizes a TikTok pixel -- a
piece of back-end code that "acts much like a traditional wiretap"
-- to intercept and share federal employees' private medical data
with the video platform, the lawsuit alleges.
Per the case, government workers can use FEPBlue.org to find
doctors, research treatments or conditions, review insurance plans
under the Federal Employee Program (FEP) and communicate with their
insurer. However, unbeknownst to visitors, the website's TikTok
pixel collects and records user information such as IP addresses,
device and browser details, pages visited, buttons clicked, search
queries and the contents of any communications exchanged, the suit
claims.
Importantly, the defendant shares enough data with TikTok to link a
website visitor to their online communications and interactions,
even if they do not have an account with the platform, the
complaint asserts.
According to the filing, the use of a TikTok pixel on FEPBlue.org
is a "flagrant breach" of BCBS's duty to protect federal workers'
private medical data, and a clear violation of state and federal
privacy statutes.
"While the U.S. government has taken steps to protect against the
risks of TikTok's collection of federal employees' personal data,
[the defendant] has secretly left the back door wide open, allowing
TikTok to gather sensitive medical information related to
employees' specific symptoms and conditions," the lawsuit charges.
"In doing so, [BCBS] subjected federal employees to the loss of
their sensitive medical data and to the risk of blackmail and
extortion by a foreign power."
In addition to a TikTok pixel, at least three other tracking tools
are utilized by FEPBlue.org to capture and record federal workers'
personal information, including Facebook's Meta pixel, Google
Analytics and the LinkedIn Insight Tag, the suit alleges.
As the case tells it, though the unauthorized disclosures to
Facebook, Google and LinkedIn do not raise questions about
potential national security risks, they are nevertheless "blatant"
breaches of government employees' privacy rights under state and
federal law.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
participates in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program and
whose private information was disclosed to a third party through
FEPBlue.org without consent at any time since November 2021. [GN]
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Residents Sued Over Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports that a group of South Carolina residents
have filed a class action lawsuit against a local smelting plant,
which they say belched clouds of toxic aluminum oxide particles,
also known as alumina, when its emission control system frequently
broke down.
Multiple times throughout 2023, residents who lived around the Mt.
Holly Century Aluminum plant near Goose Creek, were exposed to
clouds of alumina, which led to illnesses, property damage and
permanent injuries, according to a complaint (PDF) filed on
November 10 in South Carolina federal court.
The lawsuit, which names Century Aluminum Company and Century
Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc. as defendants, claims the plant's
owners refused to fix an obvious problem, choosing instead to put
profits ahead of residents' health and safety.
Alumina Dust Exposure Risks
Aluminum oxide is a white, crystalline powder used in a number of
materials, including ceramics, laboratory-grade equipment and
paper, as well as in the manufacturing of aluminum itself.
Exposure can lead to skin and eye irritation from contact, and can
irritate the nose, throat and lungs when inhaled, with a risk of
permanent lung scarring from prolonged or repeated exposures,
leading to pulmonary fibrosis.
Alumina dust exposure can also cause a condition known as "metal
flame fever", which is a flu-like illness that comes with a
metallic taste in the mouth and lasts for one to two days.
According to the alumina exposure lawsuit, the aluminum plant's
smelter began releasing heavy clouds of white powder in March and
April of this year. The clouds were suspended in the air for long
periods of time, and settled onto surfaces, damaging paints,
finishes, lawns, and making both humans and pets ill.
This began to happen regularly starting in September, which the
lawsuit indicates was the result of the plant's emission system was
malfunctioning. However, the owners continued to operate the plant,
while failing to have the problem repaired or warn the community of
the potential health risks.
"Rather than shut down the Smelter and stop the harmful particulate
emissions, Defendants chose to continue operating the plant and
emitting particulates," the lawsuit states. "Defendants knew or
learned from examination of the emissions control system that the
filter bags were failing and that accelerated scale growth in the
Smelter was causing increased pressure in the emissions control
system and bag failure."
Despite that knowledge, the incidents continued throughout the
month, with the defendants promising to fix the problem by
mid-October. However, the 15 plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit say
the owners should have ceased operations until the problem was
fixed, instead of continuing to operate, knowingly placing
residents' health at risk.
During and after the incidents, plaintiffs reported suffering
irritation, itching, swelling, congestion, sinus issues, coughing,
nose bleeds, headaches, shortness of breath, asthma and permanent
lung injuries. As the dust settled onto properties, the particles
also damaged finished and painted surfaces, such as homes and cars.
The alumina was also inhaled and ingested by pets, who also became
ill, according to the lawsuit.
The complaint seeks class action status to represent anyone who
lived within seven miles of the facility from September 3, 2023,
through September 30, 2023. They present claims of trespass,
nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and willful
conduct, and negligence per se. [GN]
COACH USA: Faces Class Action Over Religious Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
TMZ reports that a bus company is being taken to court after
allegedly failing to deliver on its contract to transport
protesters trying to get to the March for Israel rally after its
drivers refused to drive them . . . and the plaintiff is claiming
it's owed damages for religious discrimination.
A guy named Doron Orbach is suing Coach USA in a class action
lawsuit, alleging violations of several federal anti-discrimination
laws -- including the Civil Rights Act -- that he claims Coach is
liable in connection with his attempt to get folks to the D.C.
protest in support of Israel.
According to the docs, obtained by TMZ, Orbach -- who's Jewish and
Israeli -- says the Israeli American Council had booked buses
through Coach to transport upwards of 900 individuals that day to
go from various pickup points across the East Coast . . . and to
pull up for the march in D.C.
But Orbach claims Coach never picked up these folks like they were
scheduled to -- and he alleges it was all due to a coordinated
effort on the part of its drivers/employees refusing to do the job
based on their "discriminatory animus" towards Jewish people.
The lawsuit says that multiple Coach bus drivers staged a "sick
out" that day as a way to avoid picking up these hundreds of people
. . . a majority of whom, Orbach says, were Jewish or of Israeli
origin.
As a result of this alleged discrimination . . . Orbach claims his
civil and human rights were violated -- as were those of everyone
else who missed the rally as a result. Orbach says Coach knew or
should have known about the possibility of its drivers backing out
and failed to take measures to prevent it . . . and it suing for
unspecified damages. [GN]
COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Claims Can't Enforce Arbitration Clause
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
owners of graduation website Balfour can't enforce an arbitration
clause against a potential class action over biometric privacy
because plaintiff Joshua Gaertner didn't see it, his counsel
Matthew Limoli argued on Nov. 6.
Limoli opposed a motion that Iconic, a Texas business, filed in
October.
He claimed an arbitration agreement on a website must be clear and
conspicuous enough to give actual notice that a person is entering
a contract rather than browsing a web page.
"Gaertner did not have notice of the arbitration clause hidden on
defendant's website and did nothing to indicate he agreed to its
terms," he wrote.
He extended the argument to Gaertner's mother Donna Gaertner, who
bought two pictures of her son's graduation from Southern Illinois
University at Edwardsville in May.
Iconic argued in its arbitration motion that if Joshua Gaertner
didn't consent to arbitration by searching pictures, his mother
consented by buying them.
Limoli wrote, "Josh Gaertner did not ask his mother to use the
Iconic website or to purchase the photos of him."
"He understands that his mother did so on her own volition and for
her own benefit, and made the purchase using her own funds," he
added.
Limoli and former St. Louis law firm leader John Driscoll, now in
Puerto Rico, filed suit in July.
They claimed Iconic's facial recognition software invaded
Gaertner's privacy.
They proposed to certify a statewide class seeking $1,000 for each
negligent violation and $5,000 for each reckless and intentional
violation.
They claimed Iconic photographers take two million photos at 6,000
events a year.
They listed 56 Illinois schools where Iconic photographed
graduations.
Iconic counsel Jessica Dagley of Chicago moved for arbitration in
October, claiming every page of the website provided a link to
terms that included an agreement to arbitrate.
She claimed Iconic contracts with universities, and Gaertner
graduated with a degree in computer engineering.
Dagley claimed the terms of use stated, "If you do not want to
agree to these terms of use you must not access or use this
website."
She added that they provided that any dispute would be resolved by
binding arbitration.
Dagley claimed they stated there is no judge or jury in arbitration
but an arbitrator can award an individual the same damages and
relief as a court.
The terms allegedly stated a user was free not to proceed with
using the website.
Dagley claimed Gaertner "and through his mother" consented to the
terms through significant use of the website.
She added that they navigated to and through multiple pages that
made the terms available.
"Even if he asserts that he did not agree to arbitrate, he is bound
by his mother's consent to arbitrate," she wrote.
Limoli claimed in his opposition brief that a court can't presume a
person knew about a clause that required further action to find and
assented to terms simply by using the internet.
He attached a declaration of Gaertner that he received emails with
links to photos.
He declared he accessed the website and, "I did not see any
reference to terms applicable to using the website and was never
asked to agree to any terms of using the website."
"I did not see any reference to an agreement to arbitrate with
Iconic, was never asked to agree with Iconic, and did not do
anything to indicate that I was agreeing to arbitrate with Iconic,"
he declared.
Limoli claimed there was nothing visually distinctive about the use
of terms hyperlink in general or relative to surrounding
hyperlinks.
"All appear in a dull gray font and are not underlined unless the
user places the mouse pointer over them," he wrote.
He claimed a user needed to scroll through 15 paragraphs to find
the arbitration clause.
District Judge Stephen McGlynn presides. [GN]
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Jewish Students Sue Over Antisemitism
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Goldenberg, writing for The Suburban, reports that Jewish
students and a teacher filed a $15 million class action suit
against Concordia University, for not doing enough for more than 20
years to counter antisemitism.
They are asking for $10 million in general damages, and $5 million
in punitive damages. A judge will have to approve moving the case
forward to a hearing.
The claimants have asked the media not to reveal their identity for
fear of reprisal, especially in the current atmosphere of the
Israel-Hamas war that has prompted numerous antisemitic incidents
in Montreal, including Jewish students being attacked by pro-Hamas
individuals, Jewish schools being fired upon and Molotov cocktails
thrown at Beth Tikvah Synagogue and Federation CJA's West Island
headquarters in Dollard des Ormeaux.
The class action claims stretch back to 2002, the year a planned
appearance by now-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked a riot,
assaults and damage to the Hall building downtown. At that time,
this reporter was told by an anti-Israel individual to "go back
where you came from." The speech never took place, only press
conferences before and after the riot.
The suit, obtained by Le Journal de Montréal, cites other
incidents at the university, including the attacks by the pro-Hamas
students on Nov. 8.
The suit claims negligence on the part of Concordia, alleging it
did not investigate the cases, discipline wrongdoers, train
university staff to handle them, and offer a safe space to study.
The claimants also say the incidents over the years have prompted
them to have nightmares, a fear of certain public places and of
practising their religion. [GN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Burian Labor Suit in New York Court Settled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that the case
captioned "Burian v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No.
2:22-cv-02108 (E.D.N.Y.) was settled for an immaterial amount and
was dismissed with prejudice in May 2023.
In April 2022, a former employee filed said suit, asserting class
claims on behalf of certain non-exempt employees under New York
Labor Law, as well as under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
failure to pay on a weekly basis and failure to pay overtime.
Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court OK's De Benning Labor Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that in April 2022, a
settlement of the case captioned "De Benning v. Costco Wholesale
Corp.," Case No. 34-2021-00309030-CU-OE-GDS (Sacramento Superior
Court) was agreed upon, subject to court approval. Final approval
of the settlement was granted on February 10, 2023.
In September 2021, De Benning, an employee, filed said class action
against the company alleging violations of the California Labor
Code regarding failure to provide sick pay, failure to timely pay
wages due at separation from employment, and for violations of
California's unfair competition law.
Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Dimas Labor Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that it is facing a
case captioned "Dimas v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0006024 (San Joaquin Superior Court). The company
has moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual
claims and to dismiss the class action complaint.
In July 2021, a former temporary staffing employee filed said
action against the company and a staffing company alleging
violations of the California Labor Code regarding payment of wages,
meal and rest periods, wage statements, the timeliness of wages and
final wages, and for unfair business practices.
Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.
CROFT & FROST: Faces Class Action After Sudden Shutdown
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action accuses Croft & Frost, PLLC and its namesakes
of malpractice in that the accounting firm took on more business
than it could manage before abruptly closing its doors days before
a tax filing deadline, "pull[ing] the rug out from under" thousands
of customers.
The 14-page lawsuit says that despite the firm's "basic duty" to
undertake only the professional services that it could competently
perform, the Tennessee-based tax preparer, CEO and founder Paul
Croft and co-founder Jonathan Frost "bit[] off more work than
[they] could chew" without having adequate staff to complete it.
The allegedly "overgrown and unperforming" company effectively shut
down operations on September 12, 2023, without prior notice to
clients, just three days before a quarterly tax filing deadline,
the suit relays.
"Rather than advise customers, to whom they owed professional
duties, that the accounting firm was teetering, the principals
robbed Peter to pay Paul to stay afloat and kept promising the work
would be done meanwhile not paying the huge staff necessary to do
the work for thousands of customers," the case contends.
According to the complaint, "the cracks at [Croft & Frost] started
to show" when employees were paid in December 2022 with funds from
another of defendant Frost's companies. By September 2023, the
executives' "poor investments and outsized lifestyles" had put the
firm in dire financial straits, the filing alleges.
On September 12, the head of human resources informed employees
that the company was "implement[ing] an immediate workforce
reduction," which involved the abrupt termination of all workers,
the lawsuit describes.
The suit claims that Frost, a self-proclaimed "business guru," and
Croft, who loudly "broadcast[ed] his grandiosity on social media,"
overpromised and underdelivered with regard to the accounting
services their firm could reasonably handle.
"The result of the hubris and grandiosity was a failed business
that left hundreds of customers in the lurch when reality caught up
to Croft and Frost," the case charges.
The plaintiff, a Virginia resident, engaged the firm to prepare
various personal and business tax filings for the 2021 and 2022
calendar years, the complaint states. The man claims to have waited
through August 2023 for preparation of his latest tax returns
without a word from the company and, in early September, began
contacting Frost to seek information on the status of the filings,
whose submission deadline was approaching.
Per the lawsuit, defendant Frost reportedly completed one of the
plaintiff's personal tax returns in early September but did not
file the others.
"By mid-September Mr. Frost was apparently trying to handle the tax
matters for thousands of customers including [the plaintiff] and
his five related returns by himself with no staff," the suit
relays.
After the shutdown, customers were unable to get their business
records from the firm, the case alleges, adding that one client was
told she would have to pay $200 to get them from another company
that had purchased the records.
The complaint contends that the defendants failed to exercise
professional care and left many consumers to suffer the
consequences when the firm closed its doors so suddenly that
clients were unable to find a replacement accountant before the tax
filing deadline.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who was a customer of Croft &
Frost, PLLC at the time of its shutdown in September 2023. [GN]
CTVALENCIA INC: Donis Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARLON DONIS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CTVALENCIA INC. dba CHRONIC TACOS,
a California Corporation; CHRIS LEE, an Individual; and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV26704 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in
violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize or permit rest periods, failure to provide adequate wage
statements, and engagement in unfair competition.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or around 2015.
Plaintiff's job duties consisted of about six hours of managerial
tasks, however Plaintiff's duties also consisted of working on the
cashier, customer service, and food preparation. At no point during
Plaintiff's employment has he made at least double any applicable
minimum wage. The Plaintiff alleges that, at all times relevant to
this action, that Defendants exercised control over the wages (or
in some cases, the decision not to pay wages) and hours pertaining
to his employment.
CTVALENCIA Inc. is engaged in the food and restaurant
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory P. Wong, Esq.
John F. Litwin, Esq.
BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC
6047 Bristol Parkway
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (323) 450-2777
Facsimile: (310) 215-3416
E-mail: greg@barklawfirm.com
john@barklawfirm.com
DONOTPAY INC: Averts False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that DoNotPay
Inc., an artificial intelligence subscription service that provides
a variety of legal services, convinced a federal judge to dismiss
an Illinois law firm's proposed class action alleging false
advertising since the service isn't licensed to practice law.
MillerKing LLC didn't show that DNP hurt its business or were even
the law firm's direct competitors, the US District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois said on Nov. 17. DNP sought to
dismiss the suit since MK didn't allege lost revenue or clients
withholding business because of DNP conduct. [GN]
DSM-FIRMENICH AG: Fragrance Price-Fixing Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sotos Class Actions reports that this case alleges that the
defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and control prices, as well as manipulate the market and
customer distribution for fragrances utilized in a wide range of
products. These products include luxury fragrances, cosmetics, as
well as everyday consumer goods such as breakfast cereal, shampoo,
body wash, toothpaste, detergents, personal care products,
cosmetics, and retail fragrances across Canada and other
locations.
Furthermore, the case alleges that the defendants entered into
agreements to restrict the supply of specific fragrances and
prevent competitors from supplying certain customers. The
misconduct targeted both direct and indirect consumers of
Fragrances and associated end products, resulting in increased
prices.
The defendants are Firmenich International Sa, DSM-Firmenich AG,
Firmenich of Canada Limited, Givaudan SA, Givaudan Canada CO.,
International Flavours and Fragrances Inc., International Flavours
& Fragrances Inc. (Canada) Ltd, Symrise AG, And Symrise Pet Food
Canada (Spf).
The Court will decide at a later date if the case will proceed as a
class action.
The case seeks to represent all persons in Canada who purchased
fragrances and products containing fragrances since August 14,
2018. [GN]
E&P FINANCIAL: Settles Customers' Class Action for $16MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that Shine
Lawyers, representing the class action, said a conditional
settlement has been reached between E&P Financial Group and the
estimated 4,000 customers allegedly affected by the advisers'
conduct.
The settlement was reached without admission of liability and is
now subject to court approval.
The class action alleged that E&P advisers, working under the Dixon
Advisory Superannuation Service (DASS) -- which went into
liquidation in January last year -- gave unsuitable advice that did
not reflect their clients' needs or financial circumstances.
It was also alleged the advice was not in the clients' best
interests and, when there was a conflict, it was not adequately
addressed.
In addition to E&P Financial and DASS, the proceedings were brought
against former chief executive Alan Dixon and former director
Christopher Brown.
The affected clients will retain the ability to make a claim with
the Australian Financial Complaints Authority or financial services
compensation of last resort. [GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss FCRA Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel JT McKenna, Esq. and John L. Culhane, Jr., Esq., of Ballard
Spahr LLP, disclosed that joining every other circuit to address
the same issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
recently ruled that a consumer does not have to prove actual
damages to recover statutory damages for willful violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
In Omar Santos, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the
named plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in which they sought
to represent a class of individuals whose credit reports contained
tradelines for debts reported to Experian by a collector of medical
debts ("Healthcare Tradelines"). Due to a technical error by
Experian, the status dates for the Healthcare Tradelines reported
by Experian on the named plaintiffs' credit reports were
inaccurate. The named plaintiffs were among more than 2.1 million
consumers whose Experian credit reports provided to third parties
had inaccurate status dates for HealthCare Tradelines. In their
complaint, the named plaintiffs alleged that Experian willfully
violated its obligation under the FCRA to "follow reasonable
procedures" to ensure that credit reports were prepared with
"maximum possible accuracy." They sought damages "of not less than
$100 and not more than $1,000" for Experian's willful FCRA
violations.
Experian moved for summary judgment. While it did not dispute that
the named plaintiffs' credit reports contained inaccurate status
dates for the Healthcare Tradelines, it argued that the FCRA's
provision for willful violations required the named plaintiffs to
prove that they were denied credit, and incurred actual damages, as
a result of the inaccurate dates.
The district court agreed that proof of actual damages was required
but denied Experian's summary judgment motion because there was
some evidence that the named plaintiffs suffered actual damages.
After the close of discovery, the named plaintiffs moved to certify
a class, and as to the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, they argued that because they did not have to
prove actual damages resulting from Experian's willful violation,
any individual issues concerning class members' actual damages were
irrelevant. In response, Experian argued that because the putative
class members were required to prove they were actually injured by
a willful violation, each class member's individual proof of
damages would predominate over common questions.
The magistrate judge agreed with Experian that the named plaintiffs
had not met the predominance requirement in Rule 23 based on the
district court's prior ruling on Experian's summary judgment. The
magistrate judge recommended denying the named plaintiffs' class
certification motion and the district court adopted the magistrate
judge's recommendation and denied class certification. The Eleventh
Circuit then granted permission to the named plaintiffs to appeal
the district court's class certification order.
Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC
v. Ramirez, the Eleventh Circuit first found that the named
plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring the action.
Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit referenced the Supreme Court's
acknowledgment in Ramirez that intangible harms can be concrete if
they bear "a close relationship to harms traditionally recognized
as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts." According to
the Eleventh Circuit, because violations of the FCRA "have a close
relationship to the harm caused by the publication of defamatory
information," a consumer does not have to prove that the false
reporting caused an injury because the false reporting itself is
the injury. The Eleventh Circuit found that the named plaintiffs
had standing because the record contained evidence that the status
dates reported by Experian on their credit reports were
inaccurate.
The FCRA, in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a)(1)(A), allows a consumer to
recover "[1] any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a
result of the [violation] or [2] damages of not less than $100 and
not more than $1,000." (emphasis added). Experian argued that
Congress made recovery under both options contingent on a showing
actual damages, and that "damages" under the second option are
reserved for consumers who incur actual damages but either cannot
prove the precise amount of damages or suffered less than $100 in
actual damages.
In rejecting Experian's argument, one of the key rationales offered
by the Eleventh Circuit was the plain language of Section
1681n(a)(1)(A) with regard to the first option, which states that
actual damages must be sustained by the consumer as a result of the
violation before the consumer can recover. In contrast, the second
option contains none of these requirements. In addition,
emphasizing that the two options in Section 1681n(a)(1)(A) are
separated by "or," the Eleventh Circuit observed that Congress's
use of "or" to separate two provisions in a statute signals that
there are two alternatives and that reading the second option to
allow for statutory damages without proof of actual damages gives
the options separate meanings.
The Eleventh Circuit observed that its reading of the FCRA was
consistent with its FCRA case law and with how other circuits have
read Section 1681n(a)(a)(A). The Eleventh Circuit cited to
decisions of the Eighth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit which
held that the second option of Section 1681n(a)(1)(A) does not
require proof of actual damages. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit
found that the district court's denial of the named plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was an abuse of discretion because
the district court' analysis of the Rule 23 predominance
requirement was based on its interpretation of the second option in
Section 1681n(a)(1)(A). The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district
court's decision and remanded the case to allow the district court
to address Experian's argument that the named plaintiffs did not
meet all of the other Rule 23 class certification requirements.
[GN]
EXPRESS INC: McCall Sues Over False Reference Pricing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MCCALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03739-JLG-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, November 6, 2023) alleges violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Laws, California's False
Advertising Laws, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act in
connection with the Defendant's advertising of false price
discounts for merchandise sold throughout its Express Factory
Outlet stores.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory and injunctive relief from Defendant arising from its
deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious "original"
prices and corresponding phantom discounts on apparel, accessories,
shoes, and other items sold in its Express Factory Outlet stores.
Headquartered in Columbus, OH, Express, Inc. operates over 500
specialty retail and outlet stores in the United States and Puerto
Rico, the express.com online store and the Express mobile app.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (724) 656-1556
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
FADU TECHNOLOGY: Hannuri Law to File Class Action Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
Jin Min-Ji, writing for Korea JoongAng Daily, reports that initial
public offerings (IPOs) are facing challenges in Korea as investors
question the eligibility of some corporate listings for not
disclosing information that could be pivotal to their stock
prices.
Stocks under scrutiny include those of FADU, a fabless solid-state
drive (SSD) and controller company, and EcoPro Materials, an EV
battery materials maker.
FADU, which was established in 2015, went public on the tech-heavy
Kosdaq in August through the technology-growth special listing
track. It counts SK hynix as a business partner.
Hannuri Law is preparing to file class-action suit against FADU and
its IPO underwriters -- NH Investment & Securities and Korea
Investment & Securities -- for not disclosing their weak
second-quarter earnings prior to debut.
The parties are demanding compensation for damage from the
entities, citing violations of the Capital Market Act. Around 180
people, who invested more than 10 billion won ($7 million), had
registered with Hannuri Law to join the class action suit as of
Nov. 17.
FADU's revenue in the second quarter was 59 million won, far down
from 17.6 billion won in the previous quarter. Third-quarter
revenue remained weak at 300 million won.
"FADU and underwriting brokerage firms would have known about the
shocking revenue in early July, which is almost zero," said Hannuri
Law in a statement on Nov. 15. The company should have suspended
the IPO, it added.
Before it went public, FADU told investors that it estimated its
annual revenue for this year to total 120.3 billion won. Its total
revenue through the third quarter was less than 18 billion won.
"It would have been a regulatory violation if FADU had disclosed
its future earnings information before the official announcement
period," said Choi Jong-kyung, an analyst at Heungkuk Securities.
"But FADU could've voluntarily released its second quarter earnings
during the announcement period that came a week after its Kosdaq
debut."
Fadu's third-quarter was the first period when it was required to
report earnings since it debuted on Aug. 7
Choi said voluntary disclosure, which is commonly seen from other
companies, would have been the "moral obligation of a listed
firm."
FADU cited "a slump in the SSD market beyond expectation" as the
reason for its poor earnings in a statement on Nov. 13.
NH and Korea Investment & Securities both declined to comment on
the matter, but an NH spokesperson noted that "it would be
difficult for the underwriter to know about a company's future
earnings unless it promotes the information aggressively."
FADU's stock price was down more than 40 percent from its IPO price
as of Nov. 17.
EcoPro materials faced similar controversy after an earnings
flip-flop.
The company reported 6.9 billion won in operating loss in the
July-September period compared to 7.1 billion in operating profit
in the previous quarter. That turnaround was reported on Nov. 14,
after the company's subscription period ended but before its
Nov. 17 debut.
EcoPro Materials CEO Kim Byung-hoon, who had insisted that the IPO
price was "not that high," apologized on Nov. 14 for the deficit.
He cited a fall in mineral prices and the price burden of raw
materials inventory.
EcoPro Materials closed up 58.01 percent on its first trading day,
despite those concerns.
"The stock performed very well, considering that its IPO price was
determined at the lower range of the band, as it was not popular"
during the subscription period, Choi said.
Competition rate for its subscription for institutional investors
hit a record low this year.
The low volume of shares circulated on the first trading day, which
was around 17 percent, and the blanket ban on short selling from
earlier this month -- which drove up the prices of related stocks
in EcoPro and EcoPro BM -- were contributors, analysts said.
The first day's price increase "doesn't mean it will be able to
avoid the controversy faced by FADU, as the price will fluctuate,"
Choi added.
"The timing of their listing may not be illegal, but it may raise
questions over morality, which could affect investors' trust in the
market," said Won Chae-hwan, a business professor who teaches
finance and risk management at Sogang University. [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: 6th Cir. OKs Petition for Interlocutory Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that scandal-tainted
Ohio utility FirstEnergy has persuaded an appellate court to grant
mid-case review of the trial court decision allowing investors to
bring classwide securities fraud claims against the company.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted FirstEnergy's
petition for interlocutory review on Nov. 16, signaling that the
appellate court wants to be sure U.S. District Judge Algenon
Marbley of Columbus, Ohio, properly certified a class of
FirstEnergy shareholders and noteholders to pursue fraud claims
stemming from a years-long political bribery scheme.
FirstEnergy (FE.N)agreed in 2021 to pay $230 million to resolve
U.S. government charges that it paid tens of millions of dollars to
Ohio state lawmakers in a push for a law to bail out two aging
nuclear plants. Investors claim that the company is liable for the
losses they allegedly suffered when a leading Ohio politician was
arrested, and the bribery scheme came to light.
The appeal of Marbley's class certification decision, as I told you
when FirstEnergy's appellate lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell
petitioned for 6th Circuit review last April, will address two
hot-button issues in securities class actions.
The first is whether securities class actions alleging both
fraudulent omissions and affirmative misrepresentations can be
certified under the lenient Affiliate Ute test, which does not
require investors to prove that they relied on deceptive omission,
or the more stringent Basic test for fraudulent misrepresentations.
As you know, U.S. Supreme Court precedent allows securities class
action defendants to assert a variety of arguments to rebut the
presumption, under the Basic test, that their alleged misstatements
impacted the market for their stock and bonds.
Marbley certified the FirstEnergy class under the Affiliated Ute
standard, reasoning that investors' claims "primarily" stemmed from
FirstEnergy's failure to disclose the bribery scheme. The judge
also said that he would have certified the class under the Basic
standard, as lead shareholder counsel from Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd pointed out in a brief opposing FirstEnergy's petition for
review of the class certification order.
FirstEnergy nevertheless argued that the appeals court should step
in to clarify that Affiliated Ute does not apply in cases asserting
a mix of omissions and misrepresentations. In a brief responding to
shareholders, the company asserted that seven other circuit courts
have already rejected shareholder attempts to use the Affiliated
Ute test to certify classes alleging "half-truths."
FirstEnergy's argument was amplified in friend-of-the-court briefs
from several law professors and from two business groups, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (SIFMA). The company's backers warned the 6th
Circuit that Marbley's reliance on the Affiliated Ute test in a
case alleging a mix of omissions and misrepresentations was an
improper expansion of the more lenient standard.
Unless the appeals court clamps down, argued SIFMA and the Chamber,
the 6th Circuit will become an outlier where investors get what
amounts to a free pass to class certification.
"Absent the guardrails established by Basic and its progeny, public
companies would be exposed to near automatic class certification,
as plaintiffs will invoke the less demanding Affiliated Ute
presumption in nearly every case," the law professors predicted in
their brief.
The second issue raised in the interlocutory appeal is a bit more
esoteric. The Supreme Court held in 2013's Comcast Corporation v.
Behrend that classes cannot be certified unless plaintiffs' lawyers
have offered a classwide model for calculating damages. In
FirstEnergy, Robbins Geller provided expert witnesses who opined on
calculating damages for noteholders asserting claims under the
Securities Act and shareholders alleging Exchange Act violations.
But the company argued that Marbley fell short of Comcast's
"rigorous analysis" requirement when he signed off on the proposed
classwide damages model for investors' Exchange Act claims.
According to FirstEnergy, the trial judge erroneously referred to
the statutory damages model for noteholders' Securities Act claims
in endorsing their Exchange Act claims, which are not based on the
statute.
Robbins Geller countered that the full record on class
certification – including dueling expert witness reports,
hundreds of pages of deposition testimony and a lengthy hearing in
which Marbley grilled both sides about damages -- shows that the
trial judge properly scrutinized the class methodologies. The firm
also said its proposed model for calculating shareholders' damages
is "the gold-standard, well-accepted method."
The 6th Circuit panel that granted FirstEnergy's petition did not
say whether the court is more interested in the Affiliated Ute or
Comcast issue. Both of the amicus briefs backing the company
devoted more space to protesting Marbley's application of the
lenient Affiliated Ute standard, though both also faulted the trial
court's analysis of shareholders' damages model.
The Nov. 16 order noted that one factor the 6th Circuit considers
in weighing a request for interlocutory appeal is the likelihood
that the petitioner will prevail. But that's certainly not a
guarantee that FirstEnergy will get the class decertified. The
company, after all, told the 6th Circuit that shareholders are
alleging $8 billion in damages. The appeals court may just want to
double-check the trial court in a huge case based on one of the
biggest public schemes in recent memory.
FirstEnergy counsel Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell said in
an email statement that he and his client are "pleased that the 6th
Circuit will review these important questions regarding the
certification of securities class actions, including over the scope
of the Affiliated Ute presumption and what is needed to satisfy the
requirements of Comcast."
Robbins Geller declined to provide a statement.
Ironically, the 6th Circuit decision to review the FirstEnergy
class certification came on the same day that Robbins Geller
formally agreed to end a 13-year-old shareholder class action
against Goldman Sachs, after its loss last August in one of the
hardest-fought class certification battles in the history of
securities litigation. (The Manhattan trial judge certified a
Goldman shareholder class three times but Goldman ultimately
convinced the 2nd Circuit to decertify the class, based on the
Supreme Court's 2021 decision in its own case.)
Sullivan & Cromwell was Goldman's counsel throughout the saga, so
the FirstEnergy interlocutory appeal renews its class certification
rivalry with Robbins Geller. [GN]
FLEXPRO MEALS: Williams Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN EVAN DONOVAN-WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLEXPRO MEALS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-14350-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 6,
2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
For at least the past five months, the Defendant sent a text
message solicitation to Plaintiff's cellular telephone even if he
registered her cellular telephone number on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry over 10 years already. In addition, Plaintiff
has never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing
Defendant to send her text message solicitations, says the suit.
Based in Kansas City, MO, FlexPro Meals is a nationwide meal
delivery company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street
Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
FLOSPORTS INC: Settles Subscription Class Action for $2.625MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Weislo, writing for Cycling News, reports that FloSports, the
parent company of FloBikes, a live streaming service that airs
races such as the UCI World Championships, Tour de France and
cyclocross World Cup races, settled a class action lawsuit for
$2.625 million in recent weeks, the latest over opaque automatic
subscription renewals. Subscribers have until January 25, 2024 to
file claims or exclude themselves from the settlement.
It's the second class action suit to hit the broadcaster. FloSports
settled a separate suit in July for $2.625 million for violations
of the Video Privacy Protection Act after the company used Facebook
pixels to track users' video views.
The hit to FloSports paints another dark picture for cycling's
major streaming platforms after the news that GCN+, a European
competitor, announced it is closing down its live streaming service
effective December 19.
FloSports' latest class action suit stems from a suit brought by
FloGrapping customer Lucas Young of Sonoma, California. Young
alleged FloSports violated California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL)
by charging customers "absent their consent under the ARL, absent
the requisite disclosures under the ARL, and in reliance on
consumer confusion and inertia to retain customers, combat consumer
churn, and bolster its revenues," according to court documents.
The complaint included FloBikes along with the company's other
channels: FloBowling, FloCheer, FloComba, FloDance, FloElite,
FloFC, FloFootball, FloGrappling, FloGymnastics, FloHockey,
FloHoops, FloLive, FloMarching, FloRacing, FloRodeo, FloRugby,
FloSoftball, FloSwimming, FloTrack, FloVoice, FloVolleyball,
FloWrestling, and Varsity. The settlement includes renewals from
August 29, 2018 through June 15, 2023 from subscribers using
addresses in California, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Florida,
Illinois, Washington D.C., North Dakota, Virginia, Hawaii and
Vermont.
The complaint used FloBikes' 2021 Tour De France cycling broadcast
figures to support its argument that FloSports grew its audience
base through "aggressive, and deceptive, marketing tactics"
including so-called "dark patterns" (tricks used in websites and
apps that make you do things that you didn't mean to, like buying
or signing up for something).
FloSports denied all allegations of wrongdoing and agreed to settle
"to avoid the uncertainties and expenses associated with ongoing
litigation".
The settlement's final hearing is set for February 29, 2024, after
which the settlement will be distributed in either a $30 payment
for annual subscribers, $6 for monthly subscribers, or a 10%
discount on the next renewal.
Earlier this year FloSports settled the privacy suit brought by
subscriber Christopher J. Fiorentino in 2022, who alleged that
FloSports knowingly designed its websites to use code that would
send the subscriber's Facebook ID and the title of the video they
watched to Facebook (Meta).
FloSports reached a settlement in July that was given preliminary
approval in August. The settlement class includes any FloSports
subscriber who is also a Facebook user and who viewed any
pre-recorded videos on the FloSports website.
In that settlement, subscribers have until January 12, 2024 to
submit or exclude from claims or object to the settlement. [GN]
FMC CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 8
--------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until January 8, 2024 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
FMC Corporation (NYSE: FMC), if they purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's shares between November 2, 2022 and October
20, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
FMC investors should visit us at
https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-fmc/ or call toll-free (844)
367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.
About the Lawsuit
FMC and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On September 7, 2023, Blue Orca Capital reported that the Company
had made a series of false statements about the status of patent
protections for its flagship products following legal defeats in
India, China, and Brazil, that allowed competitors to launch
competing generic products at much lower prices. On this news, the
price of FMC's shares dropped more than 7.4%, to close at $76.10
per share, representing approximately $630 million in investor
losses, on high trading volume.
Then, on October 23, 2023, the Company disclosed further cuts to
its Q3 2023 outlook and guidance for revenues for Q4 and FY 2024,
projecting earnings well below analysts' expectations, citing
substantially lower sales volumes in Latin America. On this news,
the price of FMC's shares plummeted by $8.83 per share, or 12.18%,
to close at $58.12 per share.
The case is Heeg v. FMC Corporation, et al., 23-cv-4938.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: 6th Circuit Reviews Brake Defect Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a district
court insufficiently analyzed the commonality requirement in
relation to three issue classes it certified of pickup truck owners
who say Ford Motor Co.'s F-150 trucks between 2013 and 2018 had a
brake defect, the Sixth Circuit said on Nov. 16.
Though the district court "thoughtfully considered" most of the
issues in motions for summary judgment and class certification, its
"cursory treatment of commonality, one of the four necessary class
action ingredients, failed to meet" Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23's "stringent requirements," the US Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit said in a per curiam opinion. [GN]
FUTURE ELECTRONICS: Orenstein Victims' Lawyer Wants Assets Frozen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Montreal billionaire who
allegedly paid dozens of minors for sex may try to hide his assets
in case he loses a class-action lawsuit, a lawyer for the alleged
victims told a Montreal court on Nov. 17.
Jeff Orenstein, who is representing the now-adult women in the
proposed class-action, said he wants Robert Miller and his company,
Future Electronics, to deposit a total of $200 million with the
court for safekeeping to ensure his alleged victims are paid. If
Miller doesn't do that, the court must freeze all his assets, as
well as the assets of a number of companies and individuals tied to
him, Orenstein said.
"If after all this goes to trial and the over 50 plaintiffs are
successful, and they can never collect because we let a billionaire
run off with his money, that would be reprehensive," he told a
Quebec Superior Court justice.
The issue is particularly urgent because Miller is in the process
of selling the company for $5.2 billion, Orenstein said, adding
that he worries the proceeds of the sale will disappear into
foreign bank accounts out of the reach of Quebec courts. He said
bailiffs who he has sent to serve legal papers to Miller haven't
been able to find him and several property transactions allegedly
suggest Miller is attempting to hide assets.
But Miller's lawyer, Karim Renno, told the court there's no
evidence his client is trying to hide his money. "There is
absolutely no justification for this order, this is an
embarrassment of monumental proportions and it is an abuse of
procedure," he told the court.
Renno argued that the recent property transactions weren't
suspicious and that Miller is still living in Quebec. "He's not
going anywhere, he's bedridden, can't walk, can't drive, where's he
going?"
The court order sought by Orenstein would target people who are not
defendants, and is so broad it would prevent Miller from buying a
chocolate bar, Renno argued.
On several occasions, Justice Eleni Yiannakis called the two
lawyers to order, questioning their claims and telling them their
arguments weren't relevant to her questions. Early in the hearing,
she scolded Orenstein after he said he was prepared to call three
of Miller's alleged victims as surprise witnesses.
While the judge said she's sensitive to allegations of sexual
assault and takes them seriously, an asset freeze at this stage is
an "extreme remedy."
Orenstein said that since the case was filed, his firm has heard
from 50 women who allege they were victims of Miller's sexual
misconduct over a 30-year period beginning in the 1970s, including
some who were as young as 11 at the time of the alleged crimes.
Forty-one alleged victims have given statements outlining their
allegations, he said, adding that he expects more women to come
forward.
He said the court should order the asset freeze because Miller
knows he'll lose and is preparing to hide his money. "It is very
clear we'll be successful at trial," Orenstein told the court.
Three other women have filed independent lawsuits making similar
allegations against Miller.
Miller has denied all the allegations.
"I would like to remind you, and specifically the attorney who
keeps coming to court and saying that this is a slam dunk, that
these allegations were conclusively investigated by the police in
2009. Mr. Miller wasn't acquitted, he wasn't even charged," Renno
told the court.
Orenstein said his request that Miller deposit $200 million with
the court is based on the amount his clients would be awarded if
they win the proposed class action, which seeks $2.5 million in
damages on behalf of the first woman to come forward, who says she
was 17 when she was paid for sex with Miller. Some women, he said,
were younger than 17 at the time of the alleged exploitation;
others, he added, were exploited by Miller over a longer period
than she was.
Renno said he thinks $200 million is too much. "This $2.5 million
claim is absolutely ridiculous," he told the court. "There are
seven-year-olds who were repeatedly raped by clergy members that
get $150,000 in damages."
Yiannakis said she plans to rule in one week and that she is not
considering freezing the sale of Future Electronics.
The case, which was filed in February, must still be authorized by
a judge before it can proceed as a class action.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 17,
2023. [GN]
GUARANTEED RATE: Peters Seeks Mortgage Loan Officers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PETERS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUARANTEED RATE, INC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-05602 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders, and the California Unfair Competition Law.
The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, paid rest period violations, failure
to pay for non-productive time, failure to timely pay earned wages
after separation, failure to provide accurate itemized pay
statements, and violations of the unfair competition law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a mortgage loan officer
in California from January 2017 to December 1, 2020.
Guaranteed Rate, Inc. is in the business of selling residential
property (i.e., homes) mortgage loans throughout the United States,
including California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
9 Tanner Street, Suite 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Record reports that a yard hostler has filed a potential
class action lawsuit against a Kansas City transportation company
claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Shawn Seals filed his complaint November 8 in federal court against
Gully Transportation. He claims the company improperly classifies
yard hostlers, including himself, as FLSA-exempt employees,
resulting in their being denied proper overtime compensation.
Seals has been employed by Gully as a yard hostler since 2020. A
hostler move trailers and shipping containers around a construction
yard. Responsibilities typically include transporting empty and
full trailers and containers in and out of dock doors.
Seals says duties performed by yard hostlers do not meet the
criteria for exempt status. The complaint contends that this
classification results in yard hostlers being ineligible for
overtime compensation under Gully's uniform compensation plan.
Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, Seals says
he and other yard hostlers are not compensated at a rate of at
least one and a half times the regular rate for overtime. The
complaint also says Gully's compensation policy of rounding hours
to the next lowest whole number in each paycheck results in
inaccurate wage statements.
Seals is seeking damages for overtime compensation for himself and
others in his class, including liquidated damages, plus interest,
court costs, attorney's fees, and any other relief the court deems
proper.
He is represented by John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Brad K. Thoenen,
Kevin A. Todd, and Ethan A. Crockett of HKM Employment Attorneys in
Kansas City and by Michael Hodgson of The Hodgson Law Firm in Lee's
Summit.
U.S. District Court for the Western Division of Missouri case
number 4:23-cv-00824 [GN]
HEALTH NET: December 22 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
number of class action settlements opened in October for consumers
to make claims for rebates through November and beyond.
The class action settlements resolve claims related to student
loans and bankruptcy, video privacy, data breaches, false
advertising, telemarketing calls and debt-collection letters, among
other things.
A company may agree to a class action settlement as a way to avoid
litigation and/or to garner good faith with consumers without
admitting to any liability or fault.
Consumers can scan the list below to see if any recently opened
class action settlements apply to them or browse Top Class Actions'
open settlement page to find more class action rebates.
Crunchyroll, Sony Pictures agree to pay $16M to end claims they
shared subscriber data
Crunchyroll and its parent company, Sony Pictures, agreed to pay
$16 million to end claims they shared subscriber data with third
parties such as Facebook, Google, Adobe and others without consent.
The settlement class consists of registered Crunchyroll users who
viewed videos on a website, mobile app or video-on-demand service
or app owned or controlled by the company.
Individuals who would like to benefit from the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 12, 2023.
Health Net agrees to pay $10M to put to bed data breach claims
Health care company Health Net and others agreed to pay $10 million
to resolve claims involving a data breach of the Accellion file
transfer application in January 2021 that was announced in March
2021.
The settlement will benefit a class of individuals who received a
notice from Health Net that their personal information was
compromised in the data breach.
Individuals who want to benefit from the class action settlement
must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 22, 2023.
Navient agrees to pay $16M to end student loan debt claims
Financial services company Navient agreed to pay $16 million to end
claims student loan debt it owned should have been dischargeable in
the event of a bankruptcy filing.
The settlement benefits a class of borrowers or co-borrowers of
student loans owned by Navient who filed for bankruptcy protection
after Oct. 17, 2005, after becoming obligated to repay their
student loans and never reaffirming their private student loans.
Borrowers must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 20, 2023, to be
eligible to benefit from the class action settlement.
AC2T to pay $3.6M to end claims it falsely advertised bug spray
Mississippi-based company AC2T agreed to pay $3.6 million to end
claims it falsely advertised its Spartan Mosquito Eradicator and
Pro Tech products could "eradicate" mosquitoes.
The settlement was made to benefit a class of consumers who
purchased Spartan Mosquito, Mosquito Eradicator and Spartan
Mosquito Pro Tech products between Dec. 21, 2016, and Aug. 2, 2023.
Consumers must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 1, 2023, to
participate in the class action settlement.
Freedom Financial Network, Freedom Debt Relief to pay $9.75M over
telemarketing calls
Freedom Financial Network and Freedom Debt Relief agreed to pay
$9.75 million to end claims they made unlawful telemarketing calls
using artificial or pre-recorded voices.
The settlement will benefit a class of individuals who received a
telemarketing call that used a pre-recorded or artificial voice and
tried to sell Freedom Financial Network or Freedom Debt Relief
products between May 17, 2017, and April 17, 2018.
Individuals who would like to benefit from the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 25, 2023.
Debt collection agency to pay $450,000 to end misleading
debt-collection letter claims
Debt-collection agency Enhanced Recovery Co. agreed to pay $450,000
to put an end to claims it violated debt-collection laws by
allegedly sending misleading letters.
The settlement agreement will benefit a class of consumers who
received a debt-collection letter from Enhanced Recovery Co. that
promised to settle an account but said residual balances would
remain with creditors.
Class members must submit a valid claim form no later than Nov. 23,
2023.
Restaurant owner agrees to pay $650,000 over claims it failed to
prevent data breach
Restaurant owner Earl Enterprises agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve
claims the company failed to prevent a data breach that lasted from
2018 to 2019.
The settlement will benefit a class of consumers who made a
purchase using a debit or credit card at certain Buca di Beppo,
Planet Hollywood, Earl of Sandwich, Chicken Guy, Mixology 101 and
Tequila Taqueria locations between May 23, 2018, and March 18,
2019.
Individuals who want to make a claim in the class action settlement
must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 5, 2024.
Inline Network Integration agrees to settle data breach claims
Inline Network Integration agreed to a class action settlement that
ends claims the company failed to protect private information
during a data breach it uncovered on or around March 12, 2022.
The settlement will benefit a nationwide class of individuals who
received a notice from Inline about the data security incident.
Consumers must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 5, 2024, to be
eligible to benefit from the class action settlement.
TenantReports.com to pay $877,800 to end claims it included
outdated info on reports
Tenant-screening service TenantReports.com agreed to pay $877,800
to put an end to claims it included outdated criminal
non-conviction information on background reports.
The settlement class consists of individuals who had a background
report prepared for them by TenantReports.com between April 8,
2020, and April 9, 2023, that included information on at least one
criminal non-conviction that predated the report by at least seven
years.
Class members who want to benefit from the class action settlement
must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 5, 2023. [GN]
HENKEL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Laundry Detergent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges Henkel Corporation has misled
consumers by labeling 100-fluid ounce (fl. oz.) bottles of Persil
Pro Clean as containing enough liquid laundry detergent for 64
loads, when most users will find that the actual number of loads
they can complete is significantly lower.
The 22-page case says that appearing next to the prominent
front-label claim that each bottle contains enough detergent for
"64 Loads" of laundry is a "not-so-obvious, tiny" cross-shaped
symbol that corresponds with fine-print on the product's back
label. Although the back of the container specifies that users can
do 64 "regular" loads of laundry with a bottle of Persil Pro Clean
liquid laundry detergent, consumers must search a "multi-step maze"
of fine-print to learn that this is possible only if they fill the
cap to the first line each time, the lawsuit says.
According to the case, the "measuring" section of the product's
rear-side label instructs consumers to fill the cap to "Line 1," or
1.56 fl. Oz., for "regular" loads and to "Line 2," or 2.5 fl. oz.,
for "large" loads.
"Because a laundry washing machine cannot be filled beyond full
capacity, 'large' loads, as the Product employs the term, must mean
full loads of laundry," the suit says. "That being the case, it
logically follows that a '[regular]' load is something less than a
full load of laundry."
The complaint contends that the "vast majority" of consumers prefer
to do full loads of laundry and reasonably expect the label claim
at issue to mean that they can wash 64 full loads, not 64
half-loads.
The filing claims that, in reality, one bottle of Persil Pro Clean
liquid laundry detergent allows consumers to complete, at most, 40
full loads. As such, representing that the product can provide
enough detergent for 64 loads is contrary to the average buyer's
expectations and therefore "false, deceptive, and misleading," the
complaint contends.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Missouri, Illinois,
Maryland, Hawaii, New York, Washington D.C., Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington or Connecticut who purchased Persil Pro Clean liquid
laundry detergent within the past five years. [GN]
HOTCHKISS SCHOOL: Moe Sues Over Alleged Sexual Abuse
----------------------------------------------------
MARK MOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE HOTCHKISS SCHOOL, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01460-JCH (D. Conn., November 6, 2023) asserts claims
against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
negligent retention, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
recklessness, and vicarious liability in connection with the
Defendant's failure to protect the children in its care from
unreasonable risks of harm, including sexual abuse.
Plaintiff Moe seeks compensation for the harm he suffered and
continues to suffer from Hotchkiss allowing Roy Smith to abuse him
when he was a child in Hotchkiss's care. The Plaintiff also seeks
to represent an issues class to prove that Hotchkiss owed and
breached a duty to all alumni that Hotchkiss allowed Roy Smith to
prey upon in the locker room and in Smith's apartment.
Founded in 1891, Hotchkiss is a private college-preparatory
boarding school for grades nine through 12, located in Lakeville,
CT. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glenn A. Duhl, Esq.
ZANGARI COHN CUTHBERTSON DUHL & GRELLO P.C.
59 Elm Street, Suite 400
New Haven, CT 06510
Telephone: (203) 789-0001
Facsimile: (203) 782-2766
E-mail: gduhl@zcclawfirm.com
- and -
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
Avery S. Halfon, Esq.
Patrick I. Andrews, Esq.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com
ahalfon@lchb.com
pandrews@lchb.com
ILLUMINA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP ( www.ktmc.com )
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California against Illumina, Inc. ("Illumina") ( NASDAQ: ILMN ).
The action charges Illumina with violations of the federal
securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent
misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations,
and prospects. As a result of Illumina's materially misleading
statements and omissions to the public, Illumina's investors have
suffered significant losses.
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR ILLUMINA LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON
THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/illumina-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ilmnc&mktm=r
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JANUARY 9, 2024
CLASS PERIOD: MAY 1, 2023 THROUGH OCTOBER 16, 2023
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.
ILLUMINA'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
By way of background, in 2015, Illumina formed GRAIL, Inc.
("GRAIL") as a corporate subsidiary to develop a blood-based cancer
detection test. Illumina initially spun-off GRAIL in February 2017
and then reacquired it in September 2020.
On April 28, 2023, Carl C. Icahn ("Icahn"), who was the beneficial
owner of approximately 1.4% of the outstanding shares of Illumina
as of February 17, 2023, issued an open letter to Illumina
shareholders which demanded an independent investigation into the
spin-off and reacquisition of GRAIL as it was alleged that Illumina
insiders personally benefited from those transactions.
The Class Period begins on May 1, 2023 when Illumina issued a press
release and shareholder letter in connection with the annual
stockholder meeting to be held on May 25, 2023. In that letter,
Illumina responded to Icahn's open letter claiming that Icahn's
"allegations are completely false." A few weeks later, on May 18,
2023, the company issued another press release which stated that
"no director who oversaw any part of the GRAIL transaction has ever
owned any equity interest in GRAIL."
On August 10, 2023, Illumina disclosed that the SEC was
investigating the company's statements regarding its recent
acquisition of GRAIL including conduct and compensation of certain
members of Illumina and GRAIL management. Following this news, the
price of Illumina shares declined by $4.64 per share, or
approximately 2.51%, from $185.12 per share to close at $180.48 on
August 11, 2023.
Then, on October 17, 2023, Icahn filed a complaint against current
and former directors of Illumina, alleging claims of breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaint was filed under seal, but according
to analyst Reuters, Icahn said that the lawsuit pertained to
Illumina completing its acquisition of GRAIL. Following this news,
the price of Illumina shares declined by $7.42 per share, or
approximately 5.63%, from $131.87 per share to close at $124.45 on
October 18, 2023.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Illumina investors may, no later than January 9, 2024, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP encourages Illumina investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information. The class action complaint against Illumina, Kangasv.
Illumina, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-02082, is filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
JAMES RIVER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 17
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of James River Group Holdings, Ltd.
(NASDAQ: JRVR) between August 7, 2023 and November 7, 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 12, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased James River securities 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 James River class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20268 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 12, 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 made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) James River lacked effective internal controls regarding the
recognition of restatement premiums for reinsurance; (2) that, as a
result, the Company overstated its net income; (3) that the Company
was reasonably likely to restate its financial results; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, defendant's positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the James River class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20268 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.
Contact Information:
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]
KFC CORP: Fails to Provide 10-Minute Rest Breaks, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aisling Brennan, writing for News.com.au, reports that two separate
class-action lawsuits, each claiming popular fast-food chain KFC
failed to give its employees paid 10-minute rest breaks, have been
ordered to work together by a court.
Gordon Legal appeared before the Federal Court on Nov. 17,
representing two clients who started a class action against two KFC
franchises.
The class action is aiming to recover compensation for workers who
did not receive their 10-minute paid rest breaks while working at
those stores between October 25, 2017 until now.
Shine Lawyers last month launched its own class-action
investigation with the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union on behalf
of all KFC employees.
The Shine Lawyers investigation alleges staff were also not given a
paid 10-minute break when working a shift over four hours since
October 2017.
The union will collect evidence from workers of alleged misconduct
alongside legal firm Shine Lawyers.
The Shine Lawyers class action has yet to be heard in the Federal
Court.
KFC workers under a 2020 enterprise agreement are entitled to a
paid 10-minute break after four hours of work and a second paid
break after eight hours.
Of the 37,000 workers covered under the agreement, 34,000 are under
the age of 21.
When the Gordon Legal class action was mentioned before the Federal
Court on Nov. 17, Justice Michael Lee ordered Shine Lawyers to
"immediately" prepare its case for court.
The court was told that KFC argued it was not aware of what the
Shine Lawyers class action would entail.
Justice Lee said if both class actions prepared their cases and
outlined their arguments, then he'd be able to proceed with the
case management hearing.
He said that would allow KFC to prepare its defence in a timely
manner for both class actions and could prevent unnecessary court
proceedings if an agreed statement of facts could be established.
"It just seems to me the appropriate course would be to make an
order . . . get the Shine proceedings on immediately and bring it
back in a couple of weeks," Justice Lee said.
All parties involved agreed and the case was adjourned to December
4.
A 21-year-old KFC worker earns $24.85 an hour on a full adult
rate.
A 16-year-old earns 50 per cent of the $24.85 wage and the figure
rises as age progresses, with an 18-year-old earning 80 per cent of
the full adult rate. [GN]
KIA AMERICA: Must Face Insurers' Claims Over Theft-Prone Cars
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Kia and
Hyundai can't exit lawsuits by several hundred insurance companies
that seek to recover more than $1 billion in claims paid to drivers
whose cars were allegedly easy to steal or vandalize.
The insurers raised viable consumer protection, breach-of-warranty,
negligence, and fraud claims against US units Kia America Inc. and
Hyundai Motor America, the US District Court for the Central
District of California said on Nov. 15.
Certain 2011–2022 Kia and Hyundai models have no engine
immobilizer -- an electronic security device that makes it harder
to start a vehicle without the appropriate key, the insurers said.
Social media posts demonstrating how to break in and steal the cars
fueled a rash of thefts, the carriers said. At issue are more than
14 million thief-friendly cars, the insurers said.
Federal anti-theft regulations that allow automakers a choice of
security features don't preempt the claims, Judge James V. Selna
said. The insurers adequately allege that Kia and Hyundai failed to
equip the cars with any anti-theft feature, the court said.
The court also said the insurers raised viable subrogation claims,
rejecting the automakers' argument that the carriers had to offer
specific facts for each individual policyholder.
Nor are the claims restricted by the economic loss rule, which
allows recovery under tort law only when a product defect causes
damage to other property -- that is, something other than the
allegedly flawed product.
The insurers adequately alleged that the automakers' failure to
include an anti-theft device can cause personal injury and damage
to property other than the vehicles, the court said.
And traditional concerns of fairness and equity don't weigh against
the insurers, the court said.
Even though the insurers received premiums, the automakers
allegedly failed to include any anti-theft device as required under
federal regulations, the court said. "Thus, the level of fault is
almost entirely on the Defendants, as they decided whether the
Vehicles included an anti-theft device," it said.
The court dismissed parent companies Kia Corp. and Hyundai Motor
Co. for now, saying it lacks general personal jurisdiction over
them. But the insurers may amend their complaint to include
allegations supporting the exercise of specific personal
jurisdiction over the South Korean corporations, Selna said.
The litigation also includes two other sets of lawsuits -- one by
municipalities seeking to recoup public safety expenses and other
costs associated with the rash of vehicle thefts, and one by
consumers who allege they suffered financial harm when their cars
were stolen or vandalized. Selna recently gave tentative approval
to a settlement in the consumer suits.
Cozen O'Connor PC and others represent the insurers. Jenner & Block
LLP represents the automakers
The case is In re Kia/Hyundai Vehicle Theft Litig., C.D. Cal., No.
8:22-ML-03052-JVS, 11/15/23. [GN]
KLM ROYAL: Faces Suit Over Misleading Sustainability Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges certain claims from KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
regarding environmental sustainability and "fly[ing] responsibly"
are bunk given that the airline bases the statements on outdated
carbon emissions targets.
According to the 21-page complaint, Netherlands-based KLM Royal
Dutch Airlines touts to consumers its commitment to "fly
responsibly," that it recognizes the need to stem global warming,
and that the airline has "committed to the targets defined in the
Paris Climate Agreement." Though the airline markets its commitment
to sustainability, the lawsuit contends that its Climate Action
Plan projections are based on a scenario that is "inconsistent with
the Paris Agreement to prevent world temperature rising above 1.5
ºC."
As the suit tells it, KLM Royal Dutch, on the contrary, contributes
to a trajectory in which there exists a high probability that
global warming will surpass 1.5 ºC by 2050.
"The targets KLM is using to try and limit its carbon emissions are
outdated, and using this as a goal is insufficient to curb
dangerous global warming," the lawsuit summarizes. "Though KLM
attempts to specify its environmental initiatives with facts and
figures, the result is consumers being misled."
The allegedly misleading sustainability statements from KLM include
purported reductions in CO2 emissions, the amount of water saved by
the airline, and the use of sustainable biofuels, the filing
expands.
Further, the suit claims KLM Royal Dutch's descriptions of its
CO2ZERO carbon offsetting program -- whereby the airline allows
fliers to buy carbon credits to, in theory, help contribute to the
reduction or removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by
planting and growing trees -- are misleading. The filing alleges
the airline "has not used competent and reliable scientific and
accounting methods to properly quantify" the touted emissions
reductions from its use of carbon offsets.
"No credible evidence exists that purchasing carbon credits is
equivalent to negating the environmental effects of flying," the
lawsuit states.
The lawsuit ultimately claims KLM Royal Dutch flights cost more
than on other airlines, and more than similar flights, due to the
airline's "false and misleading representations and omissions about
its environmental initiatives."
The case looks to cover all consumers in Michigan who bought
flights on KLM Royal Dutch or via KLM through its codeshare
partners, including Delta, in reliance on the airline's
environmental claims during the applicable statute of limitations
period. [GN]
KROGER CO: Faces Class Action Over Use of Tracking Tools
--------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Riley, writing for Supermarket News, reports that Kroger is
facing a class action lawsuit which alleges that the retailer
unlawfully released the protected health information of online
pharmacy patients to unauthorized third parties, including to
Facebook's parent company, Meta.
The suit, which was filed on Nov. 10 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, alleges that unbeknownst to
patients, Kroger installed tracking tools on its website,
Kroger.com, which then resulted in information around patient
prescriptions to be unknowingly shared.
The suit states that both the plaintiff, an anonymous Jane Doe, as
well as the class members are seeking up to $10,000 in damages.
Kroger did not respond to a request for comment in time for
publication of this story.
A similar lawsuit was filed against Costco in October. That suit,
which is still pending, also alleges that the wholesale retailer
inappropriately shared customer health information with Meta. [GN]
MARYLAND: AARP Foundation File Class Action v. Home Care Agency
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARP Foundation and the Public Justice Center filed a class action
lawsuit on Nov. 16 on behalf of home care aides who are current and
former employees of FinePoints Private Duty Healthcare, LLC
(FinePoints). The suit alleges that FinePoints, a private agency in
Maryland that provides in-home assistance to individuals with
special needs, committed wage theft by grossly underpaying its
employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maryland
wage laws.
According to the suit, plaintiff Margaret Bobb and other FinePoints
home care employees traveled to multiple client homes per day,
helping older adults and people with disabilities with bathing and
dressing, preparing meals, cleaning, monitoring medications,
providing transportation to appointments, and other caregiving
tasks. The suit alleges that many of FinePoints' home care aides
consistently worked substantial overtime hours, including time
spent traveling between clients' homes, often seven days per week.
The FLSA and Maryland wage laws require FinePoints to pay employees
time-and-a-half for all hours worked over 40 per week, including
compensation for time spent traveling between worksites like
clients' homes. According to the complaint, FinePoints refused to
pay Ms. Bobb and its other home care employees overtime rates for
their overtime hours and denied them any compensation for hours
traveling between clients' homes. FinePoints' misclassification of
its home care employees' status under federal and state wage laws
also exposed them to the risk of losing other employee rights such
as sick leave, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation
coverage.
Ms. Bobb seeks her unpaid wages and damages under federal and
Maryland statutes, as well as injunctive relief to permanently
reform FinePoints' wage and hour practices. The suit was filed in
federal district court in Maryland on behalf of Ms. Bobb and other
FinePoints employees, current and former, with similar
experiences.
"It's not right," said Ms. Bobb. "I, and many other home care
workers, put in long hours because we know it's important for the
people we care for. But we can't provide the kind of care people
need if we're not paid what the law says we're owed. I hope this
lawsuit helps make things better not just for myself, but for other
home care workers and for those we care for."
"Unfortunately, many of Maryland's home care agencies wrongly deny
their employees the wages and benefits they're entitled to," said
David Rodwin, Lead Attorney of the Public Justice Center's
Workplace Justice Project. "It's especially harmful when home care
workers are misclassified because it also hurts those they care for
by increasing worker turnover. It's not just wrong -- it's
illegal."
"Refusing home care workers -- many of whom are older and living on
low incomes -- the earnings they've worked hard for is an outright
violation of the law," said William Alvarado Rivera, Senior Vice
President for Litigation at AARP Foundation. "By ensuring they
receive the livable wages they deserve, we can help address the
country's shortage of direct care workers and improve the quality
of care provided to those in need, often older adults with
disabilities."
About AARP Foundation
AARP Foundation works for and with vulnerable people over 50 to end
senior poverty and reduce financial hardship by building economic
opportunity. As a charitable affiliate of AARP, we serve AARP
members and nonmembers alike. Through vigorous legal advocacy and
evidence-based solutions, and by strengthening supportive community
connections, we foster resilience, advance equity and restore hope.
To learn more, visit aarpfoundation.org or follow @AARPFoundation
on social media.
About Public Justice Center
The Public Justice Center pursues systemic change to build a just
society. We use legal advocacy tools to pursue social justice,
economic and race equity, and fundamental human rights for people
who are struggling to provide for their basic needs. We provide
advice and representation to low-income clients, advocate before
legislatures and government agencies, and collaborate with
community and advocacy organizations. To learn more, visit
www.publicjustice.org.
For further information: AARP Foundation: Madison Daniels,
mdaniels@aarp.org, 202-531-9026; Public Justice Center:
David Rodwin, rodwind@publicjustice.org, 410-625-9409 ext. 249.
[GN]
MASSMUTUAL ASCEND: Gerbman Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
ANNELLE GERBMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MASSMUTUAL ASCEND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and
PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12670
(D. Mass., November 6, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated MassMutual customers' and/or beneficiaries' sensitive
information, which was reportedly penetrated by a cyberattack that
occurred on May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023.
Plaintiff Gerbman alleges claims against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. She
seeks to remedy the harms caused by the data breach and to prevent
any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as
a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendants' inadequate data security practices.
Based in Cincinnati, OH, MassMutual provides insurance, annuity,
and other products and services to its customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
META PLATFORMS: Lake Forest Districts to Join Mental Health Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel I. Dorfman, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that the
Lake Forest public school districts are joining a nationwide
class-action lawsuit against many prominent social media companies,
claiming the proliferation and widespread access to the various
platforms has led to serious mental health issues for some
students.
The Lake Forest High School District 115 voted unanimously on Nov.
7 authorizing participation in the litigation, with the District 67
school board taking similar action on Nov. 14.
The litigation is being filed against Meta Platforms, Inc.,
Facebook Holdings LLC, Snap Inc, TikTok Inc., Alphabet Inc. and,
"other parties responsible for the creation, design, marketing, and
proliferation of social media platforms," according to school
district documents.
"The district's students' widespread adoption, consumption, and use
of social media has caused the district to incur costs in the form
of staff time, disciplinary proceedings, emotional and social
counseling, medical services, and other costs, with the expectation
that these costs will only increase unless and until student use of
social media is reduced or the social media platforms reform their
practices in attracting students," according to the resolution
authorizing participation in the litigation.
"We are directly being impacted as educational institutions of
students 18 and younger of the harmful effects of social media use
ad nauseam," District 67/115 Superintendent Matthew Montgomery
added at the District 67 meeting.
The Lake Forest school boards are joining more than 300 school
districts nationwide in 11 states in the class-action lawsuit
initiated by a San Diego-based law firm.
"I personally believe it is a good decision for our district to
pursue," District 115 board member Sally Davis said.
The financial damages the school districts are seeking is not
specified, but Montgomery said any amount of money the school
district receives could be used to augment and supplement existing
counseling programs and around safe use of social media.
A Meta representative did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Must Face Class Action Over Addictive Platforms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elura Nanos, writing for Law & Crime, reports that Meta, Google,
TikTok, and Snapchat must face a major lawsuit over their allegedly
"defective" platforms that plaintiffs say cause millions of kids to
become addicted. The case, which is awaiting class action
certification, survived a motion to dismiss on Nov. 14 despite the
companies' argument that they are entitled to immunity under
federal law.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a Barack Obama
appointee, ruled on Nov. 14 that Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act of 1996 does not shield the social media giants from
products liability claims.
The lawsuit, filed by the Social Media Victims Law Center, alleged
that the social media companies target children with platforms
purposely designed to prey upon kids' limited impulse control. The
complaint charges that the harms range from excessive screen time
to promotion of inappropriate sexual content to dangerous
child-adult connections and geolocation and more.
The defendant companies argued -- much as they have in many other
cases -- that Section 230 bars plaintiffs' claims in their
entirety, because they are not "publishers" of third-party content
within the legal meaning of the term. Rogers rejected what she
called defendants' "all-or-nothing" position and called Section 230
"more nuanced" than the companies contended. Rogers said that the
lawsuit raised issues about "a wide array of conduct" that would
constitute a failure to create safe products or warn about defects.
The judge noted as examples, the failure to provide effective
parent controls or options to self-restrict use times, the lack of
robust age verification, the difficulty involved for users to
report predator accounts, the use of appearance-altering filters,
and organizing notifications "in a way that promotes addiction."
Rogers said in her 52-page ruling that the defendant platforms did
not sufficiently respond to plaintiffs' allegations, and offered as
an example Snapchat's unconvincing argument is not a social media
platform at all and rather just "a camera application."
Most, though not all, of the plaintiffs' claims against the tech
companies survived. Rogers granted the defense motion to dismiss as
to claims about some algorithm and notification features.
Section 230 generally shields internet platforms for defamation and
other civil claims stemming from user-created content on the basis
that the platforms are not "publishers." The statute has come under
fire in recent years, including by former President Donald Trump,
who lobbied Congress to repeal the statute (though relying on
incorrect legal reasoning), and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas, who urged the Court to retool the "proper scope of
immunity" under the statute.
Calls to limit the scope of Section 230's protection are not,
however, confined to the conservative community. Top Democrats have
also argued that online platforms have "too much legal immunity,"
particularly within the context of violent extremism.
Rogers' decision on Nov. 14 means the lawsuit will move forward
through the discovery process in federal court in Northern
California. If the class action is certified, plaintiffs plan to
seek not only compensatory damages, but also practical changes such
as forced changes to operational functions of the various
platforms.
Lexi Hazam, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel in the
case, said in an email to Law&Crime on Nov. 16 that the decision
was a "a significant victory" for the plaintiff families.
"The Court's ruling repudiates Big Tech's overbroad and incorrect
claim that Section 230 or the 1st Amendment should grant them
blanket immunity for the harm they cause to their users," said
Hazam. "The mental health crisis among American youth is a direct
result of these defendants' intentional design of harmful product
features."
Hazam vowed to continue to fight against misconduct by social media
platforms that she said were responsible for "knowingly creating a
vast mental health crisis."
Counsel for the defendants did not immediately respond to request
for comment.
This piece was modified from its original version to include
comment from counsel. [GN]
MR. COOPER: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
mortgage corporation Mr. Cooper failed to protect the personally
identifiable information (PII) of its customers during a data
breach discovered by the company at the end of last month, a new
class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Nancy Randall claims Mr. Cooper was obligated by industry
standards to safeguard any information in its systems containing
PII, yet allegedly failed to do so during a data breach event it
purported to discover on Oct. 31.
Randall argues Mr. Cooper also failed to provide timely, accurate
and adequate notice to inform herself and other class members that
their PII allegedly had been compromised during the data breach.
"The security incident was wide-reaching, impacting a number of the
Defendant's computer systems and compromising the PII of millions
of people," the Mr. Cooper class action states.
Randall wants to represent a nationwide class and Washington
subclass of individuals who had their PII maintained by Mr. Cooper
and were sent a notice regarding the data breach.
Mr. Cooper failed to implement, follow 'basic security procedures,'
class action says
Randall argues her and other class members PII is now "in the hands
of criminals" due to an alleged failure by Mr. Cooper to "implement
and follow basic security procedures."
"Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and
will continue to spend, significant time and money in the future to
protect themselves due to the Defendant's failures," the Mr. Cooper
class action states.
Randall claims Mr. Cooper is guilty of unjust enrichment, breach of
implied contract, negligence, negligence per se and is in violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory
and injunctive relief along with an award of compensatory,
statutory, treble and/or punitive damages for herself and all class
members.
In March, Nationstar -- which is now known as Mr. Cooper -- agreed
to pay $5 million to end claims it sent incorrect automated
clearing house entries to the bank accounts of mortgage borrowers
in April 2021.
Did you receive a data breach notice from Mr. Cooper? Let us know
in the comments!
The plaintiff is represented by Joe Kendall of Kendall Law Group,
PLLC and Kenneth Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA.
The Mr. Cooper data breach class action lawsuit is Randall v. Mr.
Cooper Group Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-02507, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas. [GN]
NATIIONAL FOOTBALL: Violates Injury Report Policy, Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Goffinet, writing for Fox19, reports that Barstool Sports
founder and owner Dave Portnoy says he is filing a class action
lawsuit against the Cincinnati Bengals and NFL.
Portnoy posted a screenshot around 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 16, of
a $120,000 bet he placed on the Bengals to cover the four-point
spread against the Baltimore Ravens.
Just a few hours later, star quarterback Joe Burrow left the game
with an injury to his right wrist.
Joe Burrow out for season, Zac Taylor says
The injury caught the spotlight not just for what it meant to the
Bengals' season, but also because of the possibility Cincinnati
knew Burrow might have been injured before the game.
The Bengals tweeted out a photo on Nov. 15 of Burrow walking off
the team plane. In the photo, you can see a wrap around his right
wrist. The Bengals tweet was later deleted. Some on social media
have claimed it was an iPad glove on his wrist rather.
With ESPN's Adam Schefter reporting that the NFL is now
investigating the Bengals to determine if Cincinnati violated the
league's injury report policy, Portnoy wrote on X that he is filing
a class action lawsuit against the franchise.
"There is no shot I put 100k hard earned dollars on the Bengals if
I knew Joe Burrow was injured going into the game," Portnoy wrote.
[GN]
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER : Nigel Farage Turns His Claim Into Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lars Mucklejohn, writing for City A.M., reports that the Nigel
Farage Natwest "debanking" saga took another turn last week when
the former Ukip leader announced he would seek damages from the
high street lender and try to turn his claim into a class action.
The scandal erupted in June when the Brexiteer claimed that Coutts,
which is owned by Natwest, closed his account for political
reasons.
An independent review found the decision was lawful but noted
"serious failings" in Natwest's treatment of Farage.
Complaints about bank account closures have surged this year,
according to the latest figures from the Financial Ombudsman, as
the Financial Conduct Authority investigates whether customers are
being systematically "debanked" for their political views.
London-based Grosvenor Law is reportedly set to begin the legal
fight on Farage's behalf. City A.M. approached the firm for
comment.
Natwest sought to draw a line under the row by scrapping some
£7.6m in potential payouts to former boss Dame Alison Rose, who
resigned in July after admitting to discussing Farage's account
with a BBC journalist. The bank said on Nov. 17 that there was "no
finding of misconduct" against Rose.
Graham Huntley, a partner at Signature Litigation, told City A.M.
that the key to bringing a class action would be establishing that
a customer has a right to operate a bank account.
"Assuming there is a right to a bank account, then it is going to
be hard to bring the disparate variety of circumstances in which
customers have lost their banking arrangements into the sufficient
common ground that is needed to get a group or representative
action off the ground," he said.
"It is more likely that there would be test cases which could help
to deal with the antecedent question of whether the customer has a
right to a bank account and if so to what extent."
Huntley added that the wider issue of "debanking" may be better
handled through an industry approach, supported by legislation if
needed, to create a code of conduct for banks to adhere to.
"Given the surge in debanking complaints, there may be a critical
mass of debanked customers who have complaints against each of the
leading banks," said Sam Claydon, a partner at litigation boutique
Candey.
"It would be open to them to seek collective redress through the
courts, and in light of the importance of a bank account in modern
society, they may have claims that their rights have been breached
as a result."
Harvey Knight, a partner at Withers, noted that a class action "may
be possible depending on the number of potential claimants he has
identified and the extent to which there is similarity across the
cases. However, what it shows is that this issue is going to be a
growing problem for banks."
"Banks should be concerned about having to pay compensation where
they have taken a 'tick box' approach to debanking customers
without making any inquiry into personal circumstances," added
Robert Newcombe, a barrister at Church Court Chambers.
City A.M. approached Farage's spokespeople for comment, while
Natwest declined to comment. [GN]
NATURE'S PATH: Miller Sues Over Snack Products' False Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
IAN MILLER, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATURE'S PATH
FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-05711-LB (N.D. Cal.,
November 6, 2023), alleges claims against the Defendant for common
law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and
for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiff Miller, by and through his counsel, bring this class
action against Defendant Nature's Path Foods, Inc. to seek redress
for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing
of Defendant's breakfast and snack products that make protein
claims on the front of the product packages but fail to include the
percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel.
Headquartered in Blaine, WA, Nature's Path Foods, Inc. is a
corporation existing under the laws of Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
Kali Backer, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
NEW ERA FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zarate Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIO ZARATE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEW ERA FOODS ONE, INC. d/b/a C-TOWN
SUPERMARKET, DON JUAN TORRES, Individually, JASON TORRES,
Individually, and RADAME J. PEREZ, Individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-09806 (S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed at the supermarket as a grocery bagger
and stocker from approximately 2005 to February 2023. Throughout
the duration of his employment, Plaintiff worked six days a week
with a total of 10 hours day. However, he was paid below the
minimum wage for all hours that he worked at the supermarket. Among
other things, he was not also paid for an overtime premium for any
hours that he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the
Plaintiff.
New Era Foods One, Inc. owns and operates a supermarket located in
Bronx, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle T. Pulis, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: kp@belllg.com
NEW YORK, NY: Mayor Issues EO on Nunez Use-of-Force Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Adams, Mayor of the City of New York, issued Emergency
Executive Order 521.
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2021, the federal monitor in the Nunez
use-of-force class action stated steps must be taken immediately to
address the conditions in the New York City jails; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2022, the federal court in Nunez approved the
Nunez Action Plan, which "represents a way to move forward with
concrete measures now to address the ongoing crisis at Rikers
Island"; and
WHEREAS, while there has been improvement in excessive staff
absenteeism, the Department of Correction's (DOC's) staffing levels
continue to contribute to a rise in unrest and disorder and create
a serious risk to the necessary maintenance and delivery of
sanitary conditions; access to basic services including showers,
meals, visitation, religious services, commissary, and recreation;
and prompt processing at intake; and
WHEREAS, this Order is given to prioritize compliance with the
Nunez Action Plan and to address the effects of DOC's staffing
levels, the conditions at DOC facilities, and health operations;
and
WHEREAS, additional reasons for requiring the measures continued in
this Order are set forth in Emergency Executive Order No. 140; and
WHEREAS, the state of emergency existing within DOC facilities,
first declared in Emergency Executive Order No. 241, dated
September 15, 2021, and extended by subsequent orders, remains in
effect;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in me by the laws of
the State of New York and the City of New York, including but not
limited to the New York Executive Law, the New York City Charter
and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and the common
law authority to protect the public in the event of an emergency:
Section 1. I hereby direct that section 2 of Emergency Executive
Order No. 519, dated November 11, 2023, is extended for five (5)
days.
Sec. 2. This Emergency Executive Order shall take effect
immediately and shall remain in effect for five (5) days unless it
is terminated or modified at an earlier date. [GN]
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Northwell
Health and Perry Johnson & Associates have been hit with a proposed
class action lawsuit in the wake of a massive 2023 data breach in
which the sensitive personal and health information of around 3.9
million people was accessed by hackers.
The 45-page lawsuit states that Perry Johnson & Associates, a
medical service vendor for Northwell Health, became aware of the
data breach on May 2. According to a notice letter sent to victims,
the incident occurred between March 27 and May 2, a time during
which cybercriminals allegedly had "unrestricted and unrestrained"
access to proposed class members' private information for up to
five weeks or longer.
Specifically, the suit says, the cybercriminals behind the attack
accessed data belonging to patients of Northwell Health, the
largest health system in New York, between April 7 and April 19,
2023.
The data breach lawsuit chides the defendants for "inexplicably"
waiting six months before informing consumers that their sensitive
information had been stolen, depriving victims of valuable time
needed to remedy or mitigate the fallout from the cyberattack.
As the lawsuit tells it, Northwell Health and Perry Johnson &
Associates' data breach notice included no details on how many
people were impacted by the breach or why it took the companies
nearly two months to begin to notify victims.
According to one news outlet, it is estimated that nearly 3.9
million people were affected by the data breach impacting Northwell
Health. The lawsuit states that victims' names, Social Security
numbers, dates of service, medical record numbers, diagnoses and
clinical test details were among the data stolen during the
cyberattack.
"In failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and the Class's
Sensitive Information, failing to timely and adequately notify them
about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach,
Defendants violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown
number of their consumers," the lawsuit summarizes.
The filing shares that Northwell Health treats more than two
million New Yorkers each year, and Perry Johnson & Associates
provides the health system with transcription and dictation
services. In maintaining the sensitive information of consumers,
the defendants "implicitly promise to safeguard" the data against
unauthorized access, the case stresses.
The suit accuses the defendants of failing to implement reasonable
cybersecurity measures and supervise their IT or data security
agents to prevent, detect and stop breaches of their systems.
The lawsuit looks to cover all United States residents whose
sensitive information was compromised in the Northwell Health and
Perry Johnson & Associates data breach, including those who
received notice of the incident. [GN]
NUSCALE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired NuScale Power Corporation (NYSE: SMR) securities
between March 15, 2023 and November 8, 2023. NuScale is a nuclear
power company that develops small modular reactor ("SMR")
technology. It claims that its SMRs will "deliver safe, scalable,
cost-effective and reliable carbon-free power."
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Misled
Investors Regarding its Business Prospects
According to the complaint, on October 19, 2023, Iceberg Research
issued a report contradicting NuScale's claims that it could
fulfill two large contracts: (1) a contract with the Utah
Associated Municipal Power Systems ("UAMPS") for its Carbon Free
Power Project ("CFPP"), and (2) a contract with Standard Power, a
company providing data center services for businesses focusing on
blockchain mining and high performance computing applications. On
November 8, 2023, NuScale and UAMPS announced they had mutually
agreed to terminate the CFPP contract because they had failed to
engage enough subscribers. After these reports, NuScale's share
price declined, harming investors.
Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, defendants failed
to disclose that: (1) because of the effect of inflationary
pressures on the cost of construction and power, the Company and
UAMPS would be unable to sign up enough subscribers to fulfill the
CFPP; (2) Standard Power did not have the financial ability to
support its agreement with NuScale; and (3) as a result,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against NuScale Power Corporation.
Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class should
contact Robbins LLP. Plaintiffs must file their lead plaintiff
papers by January 16, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
NUTANIX INC: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year
ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 21, 2023, that on May 19, 2023, the court
granted its preliminary approval of a settlement and the notice to
class members with regards to consolidated class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and two of the company's officers.
In June 2023, the $31.1 million of settlement funds were deposited
in escrow and are included within prepaid expenses and other
current assets on the company's consolidated balance sheet as of
July 31, 2023. A final settlement hearing was held on October 4,
2023.
Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in said court. The initial complaints generally
alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a
single action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The action was brought on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive. The
defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original
Complaint, which the court granted on March 9, 2020, while
providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the
lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, again naming the
company and two of the company's officers as defendants. The
Amended Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many of
the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and again
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. The Amended Complaint
sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On September 11,
2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint and held that the lead plaintiff adequately
stated a claim with respect to certain statements regarding the
company's new customer growth and sales productivity.
On January 27, 2021, lead plaintiff, Shimon Hedvat, filed a motion
to withdraw as lead plaintiff and substitute proposed new lead
plaintiffs and approve their appointment of a new co-lead counsel.
On March 1, 2021, the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion to
withdraw as lead plaintiff but denied without prejudice his motion
to substitute proposed new lead plaintiffs. The court also reopened
the lead plaintiff selection process, allowing any putative class
member interested in serving as the new lead plaintiff to file a
lead plaintiff application. Following the lead plaintiff selection
hearing on April 28, 2021, on June 10, 2021 the court appointed
California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust as lead plaintiff and
approved its appointment of counsel.
On May 28, 2021, one of the movants for lead plaintiff, John P.
Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002,
filed a separate class action complaint in the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of persons or entities who
transacted in publicly traded call options and/or put options on
Nutanix stock during the period from November 30, 2017 and May 30,
2019, containing allegations substantively the same as those
alleged in the Amended Complaint and naming the same defendants. On
September 8, 2021, the court appointed the John P. Norton on behalf
of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 as the lead
plaintiff in the options class action. On April 26, 2022, the
parties met for mediation, which did not result in a settlement. On
September 1, 2022, California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust filed
a third amended complaint and John P. Norton, on behalf of the
Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002, filed an amended
complaint (which amends the options class action complaint). On
November 14, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint and the First Amended Complaint.
On February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to a
mediator's recommendation to settle these actions for a total of
$71.0 million, which is accrued as of July 31, 2023 and included
within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the
company's consolidated balance sheet.
Nutanix, Inc. provides an enterprise cloud platform that consists
of software solutions and cloud services that power its customers'
enterprise infrastructure.
OCEAN SPRAY: Faces Wright Suit Over Mislabeled Juice Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY WRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:23-cv-05627 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2023) is a California
consumer class action for Defendant's violations of the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code, and for breach of express warranty.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and
sells the Ocean Spray Cran-Raspberry juice product and the Ocean
Spray 100% Juice Cranberry Watermelon product. The complaint
alleges that the labels for the products prominently display, in a
conspicuous advertising panel on the back of the label, the claim
that these products include "No Preservatives." However, the
statement is false as each of the products are made with citric
acid -- a well-known preservative used in food and beverage
products. The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising
scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are
buying a premium product that is free from preservatives, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff, who purchased the products in California, was
deceived by Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct and brings this
action on her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to
remedy Defendant's unlawful acts.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
maintains its principal place of business in Lakeville-Middleboro,
Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 16
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Paycom Software, Inc. (NYSE: PAYC)
between May 3, 2023 and November 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 9, 2024 in the securities class action commenced by the
Firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Paycom securities 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 Paycom class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20233 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 9, 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. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. 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 materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Paycom's Beti
product led to cannibalization of the Company's services and
revenues; (2) Paycom knew but failed to disclose that Beti was
leading to cannibalization of Paycom's services and revenues, and
failed to warn of cannibalization as a general risk; (3) as a
result of cannibalization of revenue, Paycom missed its expected
3Q23 revenue and would have to revise its expected 2023 revenues;
(4) the cannibalization issue resulted in projected 2024
year-over-year revenue growth to between 10% and 12%, well below
expectations; and (5) 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.
To join the Paycom class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20233 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.
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 Information:
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]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Enriquez Sues Over Phenylephrine's False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREG ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY; WALGREENS
BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-05715 (N.D.
Cal., November 6, 2023) seeks for damages and equitable relief
related to Defendants' wrongful conduct in connection with the
promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and/or
selling of products containing phenylephrine, which is a compound
that Defendants falsely represented that works as a decongestant
and which is used as an active ingredient in hundreds of
over-the-counter, orally-administered medication products,
including Nyquil Severe Cold & Flu, Dayquil Cold & Flu, and generic
brands such as Walgreens Cold & Flu.
Despite the Defendants' knowledge that phenylephrine is ineffective
in alleviating nasal congestion when taken orally, they continued
to promote, advertise, market, label and sell the said products
with phenylephrine as effective nasal decongestant medicine.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs alleges claims against the Defendants for
fraud by omission or concealment, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California's False Advertising Law, the California Unfair
Competition Law, says the suit.
Headquartered in Ohio, Procter and Gamble manufactures a diverse
line of branded products, including medicines. It describes itself
as the world's largest consumer goods companies home to iconic,
trusted brands, including Tide and Vicks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
James G. Dallal, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
jdallal@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
40 Worth Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 201-6820
Facsimile: (917) 398-7753
E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com
RABOBANK NA: Dead Lead Plaintiff Suit Litigated As If He Were Alive
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Strom, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that when Fred
Burnside sat down to Google the name of a lead plaintiff in a class
action case against his client, he didn't expect this: The man had
been dead for years.
A research team at his law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine, confirmed
his finding with a death certificate. Joe Villanueva had died six
months after filing the class action lawsuit against Burnside's
client, Rabobank, in 2018.
In the ensuing five years, Villanueva's lawyers had litigated as if
he were alive. They made seven-figure settlement demands; rejected
settlement offers; filed amended complaints; and certified in court
records that their deceased client had reviewed documents provided
by the defendant, according to a motion for sanctions filed by
Burnside.
Burnside last month alerted California's Contra Costa County
Superior Court to the death. He argues the plaintiffs' firm
breached a litany of ethics rules and says they're not competent to
lead the class action, which would likely be scuttled if the
lawyers were thrown from the case.
He wants more than $1 million in fees for Rabobank, which itself no
longer exists after being acquired by Mechanics Bank in 2019.
Villanueva's lawyers told the court they were unaware their client
had died. They are seeking to have Villanueva's father take over
the role of lead plaintiff.
The lead law firm representing Villanueva, Washington DC-based
Kaliel Gold, is a regular filer of class actions that target banks
and credit unions for charging a slew of allegedly unfair or
undisclosed "junk fees."
Led by 2005 Yale Law School graduate Jeffrey Kaliel, the firm has
appeared in at least 175 cases in federal court, mostly since 2018,
according to a Bloomberg Law search.
Kaliel Gold, which consists of four lawyers, according to its
website, has earned handsome fees. In 2021, the firm earned more
than $10 million in a $75 million settlement with Bank of America.
In September, it earned part of a $2.6 million attorney fee award
in a different case against Bank of America. And the firm earned
more than $2 million itself in a 2021 settlement with Capital One
over ATM fees.
It is difficult to count how many cases it has settled, but it
appears to be dozens.
Kaliel Gold did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Burnside declined to comment for this story.
Dead Plaintiffs
Kaliel Gold has represented lead plaintiffs that died in at least
three other cases since August 2022 besides Villanueva's, according
to court records.
Defense lawyers alerted the court to two of those deaths, and a
plaintiffs' lawyer working with Kaliel Gold alerted the court in
the third. Unlike in the Villanueva case, courts were alerted much
more quickly in the other three instances: between 25 days and
eight months following the death.
There was substantive litigation after the plaintiff died in one of
the other cases.
In that case, against Metro Credit Union in Massachusetts state
court, a motion to dismiss was denied after the plaintiff died,
while the court was unaware of the death. The plaintiffs' lawyers
then argued their client should be protected from a subpoena for
more records, arguing it would invade the plaintiff's privacy and
was sought to cause "embarrassment." The plaintiff had been dead
for more than six months at the time of the filing, according to an
obituary later filed in the case.
Nevertheless, defendants eventually agreed to substitute a relative
for the plaintiff, and the case settled.
That's similar to what happened in another case in an Oklahoma
state court. After the lead plaintiff died in September last year,
a defense lawyer notified the court the next month. The case was
settled on behalf of a representative of the plaintiff's estate in
December 2022.
And a Kaliel Gold co-counsel alerted a judge in the US District
Court for the Northern District of New York that the plaintiff died
in another case, which is still pending.
Fight Ahead
Kaliel Gold appears to be in for a fight in the Villanueva case.
Burnside and a team of Davis Wright Tremaine lawyers argued the
plaintiffs' counsel breached more than 10 rules from the California
Rules of Professional Conduct or local court rules by continuing to
litigate after the client's death. (For what it's worth, Davis
Wright Tremaine took over the case in February, and Burnside
testified he learned of the plaintiff's death while preparing for a
deposition.)
To list some of the alleged violations, quoted from the motion:
-- Plaintiffs' counsel cannot have abided by their client's
decision about whether to settle because he was dead.
-- Litigating a case for five years on behalf of a dead client is
the very definition of improper delay and needless expense.
-- Plaintiffs' counsel attended mediation, filed appellate
documents, arbitrated a dispute (in the process claiming that
Plaintiff could suffer future injury due to Rabobank's practices),
represented that their client had reviewed documents produced in
2021 (years after his death), and raised new legal theories on
behalf of a dead client.
These were knowingly false statements.
"Because this lawsuit has become nothing more than a vehicle to
generate attorneys' fees for Plaintiff's counsel, the only remedy
commensurate with the gravity and extent of counsel's misconduct is
dismissal with prejudice," Burnside wrote. "Plaintiff himself will
not be harmed by dismissal, because he is dead and has no ongoing
interest in this litigation."
The plaintiffs' lawyers' response provided no substantive rebuttal
to the alleged ethical violations. The court is set to hear
arguments in the Villanueva case in February.
Jan Jacobowitz, a legal ethics advisor and former Director of the
Professional Responsibility and Ethics Program (PREP) at the
University of Miami's School of Law, said that if the allegations
in the motion are true, the Villanueva case "provided a roadmap for
a law school course in professional ethics."
"I can't even use this on my final exam because I think it's too
obvious," she said. "If I've done my job at all well this semester,
it's too obvious a fact pattern for the students to analyze."
Worth Your Time
On Big Law Succession: Some big firms are planning for succession
by reevaluating policies on compensation and origination credit and
coming up with new leadership structures that reflect the
increasing complexity of law firm management, MP McQueen reports.
On Law Firms and Israel: Some Muslim American lawyer groups have
accused major law firms of voicing "one-sided support for Israel"
and aiding a rise in "Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment," Meghan
Tribe reports.
On Litigation Funding: The head of a litigation funding industry
group tells Emily Siegel that concerns over foreign entities
exerting influence on US litigation via third-party financing are
entirely overblown. [GN]
REVCORE RECOVERY: Norfleet Sues Over Counselors' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
ZORYHA NORFLEET LISA ABBAS and VALERIE JANOWSKI on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REVCORE
RECOVERY CENTER MANHATTAN LLC, REVCORE RECOVERY CENTER OF QUEENS
LLC, REVCORE NYCATS LLC, and REVCORE HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 617754/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Oct. 31, 2023) arises from
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees worked over 40 hours per week without receiving
overtime pay for all the hours they worked. The Defendants also
failed to keep accurate time records for all hours worked, says the
suit.
Plaintiffs Norfleet and Janowski were employed by Defendants as
substance abuse counselors and group facilitators from November 26,
2019 to March 13, 2020 and from January 8, 2018 to November 6,
2018, respectively. Plaintiff Abbas was employed by Defendant as a
peer advocate from approximately November 20, 2021, to March 18,
2022.
RevCore Recovery Center Manhattan LLC is an addiction treatment
center in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Tana Forrester, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
tforrester@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
SALEM HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Use of Tracking Tools
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Salem
Health Hospitals and Clinics disclosed the health information of
patients to Facebook and Google without their consent in violation
of state and federal law, a proposed federal class action said.
"M.R." alleged that Oregon-based Salem Health installed tracking
tools on its website and patient portal, allowing the tech giants
to collect information about patients' physicians, appointments,
symptoms and medical conditions, prescriptions, treatment options,
and payments.
Salem Health's sharing of patient information through the tracking
tools violates standards and guidance from the Department of Health
and Human Services and the Federal Trade Commission, according to a
complaint filed on Nov. 15. [GN]
SALEM HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Improper IV Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Germano, writing for CBS News, reports that lawyers are filing
a class action lawsuit after hundreds of endoscopy patients at
Salem Hospital were possibly exposed to dangerous viruses.
The Keches Law Group says the lawsuit names Mass General Brigham,
Salem Hospital and 10 hospital employees, accusing them of
negligence. Salem Hospital told WBZ-TV it is aware of the lawsuit
and is reviewing it.
On Nov. 15, the hospital announced improper IV procedures may have
exposed as many as 450 patients to Hepatitis B and C, and HIV. The
hospital said the problem went on for about two years.
The lawsuit is being filed on behalf of plaintiff Melinda Cashman,
of Amesbury. The lawsuit states that Cashman has to undergo tests
to figure out if she was infected, "a process which can take months
or even years." Cashman said she received a letter from Salem
Hospital on Nov. 3, telling her she may have been exposed to a
virus and no ability to immediately follow up.
"My brain went into 800 different places and I literally just could
not stop trying to figure it out," said Cashman. "Was I going to
end up needing a kidney or a liver transplant? Was I going to get
an infection that was going to require me to not be around anymore?
And I'm the sole caregiver for my parents."
Salem Hospital said it has determined that the infection risk to
patients "is extremely small," and all potentially impacted
patients have been notified and offered free screenings. So far
there are no reports of anyone contracting an infection.
"A hospital has a duty to be open with their patients, to talk to
them about why this happened, how this happened, for how long it's
been going on, how long has the hospital known it's been going on,"
said the plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Catalano.
Cashman said she can't even interpret the test results she got and
can't get clarification from her doctor, especially after a
telehealth appointment was canceled.
"My stress level went from overwhelmed to straight up anger," said
Cashman. "Why would you not pick up the phone?"
WBZ-TV spoke to Michael Walsh, a trial attorney for Altman Nussbaum
Shunnarah, about next steps for impacted patients. He said patients
should be aware of what they are signing before they take a test.
"Certainly there's going to have to be some sort of consent to get
the testing, but what you don't want to do is sign anything to
release a hospital or any institution of liability should it happen
that you were infected by these practices," Walsh said. [GN]
SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Feb. 2023 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges a data breach experienced by Skidmore
College earlier this year was caused, at least in part, by the
school's failure to implement adequate cybersecurity procedures.
According to the 44-page case, more than 12,000 individuals had
their personal information compromised in a cyberattack that
targeted the private Saratoga Springs, New York college around
February 15, 2023. The lawsuit says that the data breach, which was
reportedly discovered two days later, on February 17, exposed
students' and employees' names, addresses, Social Security numbers,
health insurance information and credit or debit card numbers.
Per the complaint, Skidmore waited about seven months after
detecting the intrusion to notify the proper authorities and
victims. The defendant's September 15 notice letter specifies that
an unauthorized actor gained access to its network, deployed
ransomware that encrypted a "small percentage" of its faculty
file-sharing system, and stole files containing victims' private
data.
"As a result of Defendant's delayed response to the data breach,
Plaintiff and Class had no idea their [personally identifiable
information] had been compromised, and that they were, and continue
to be, at significant and imminent risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social and financial harm," the
filing says. "The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes
because of [the defendant's] negligence."
The lawsuit says that although Skidmore had a legal obligation to
keep consumers' information confidential, secure and protected from
unauthorized access, it nevertheless failed to comply with
industry-standard data security practices. To compound matters, the
threat of a data breach was a "known and foreseeable" risk to the
college, one that required reasonable cybersecurity measures to
prevent, the case contends.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
personal information was compromised during the data breach that is
the subject of the notice letter published by Skidmore College on
or about September 15, 2023. [GN]
SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Kobor Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER KOBOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SKIDMORE COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01392-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., November 6,2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to adequately secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information.
On or about February 17, 2023, the Defendant discovered that on or
about February 15, 2023, an unauthorized actor gained access to the
Defendant's network and obtained unauthorized access to Defendant's
files, which contain PII of approximately 12,143 individuals.
However, the Defendant only notified the affected individuals on or
about September 15, 2023. Moreover, the Defendant breached its
numerous duties and obligations by failing to implement and
maintain reasonable safeguards; failing to comply with
industry-standard data security practices and federal and state
laws and regulations governing data security; failing to properly
train its employees on data security measures and protocols;
failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized third parties
accessing its system and that substantial amounts of data had been
compromised; and failing to timely notify the impacted Class, says
the suit.
Located at 815 North Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY, Skidmore
College is a four-year private, nonsectarian, coeducational school
that has 2,700 undergraduate students and provides 44 majors, 19
athletic varsity teams, and more than 100 student organizations.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612)-336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
SONY ENTERTAINMENT: Data Breach Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
IT Gujarat reports that if you are a working or an ex-employee of
Sony Entertainment then you must read this article and find details
on Sony's data breach lawsuit. Here we have all the information on
Sony Data Breach Class Action: How and Who Can Get Sony Data Breach
Lawsuit Payment?
Sony Data Breach Class Action
Despite facing significant obstacles, Sony has been defending
against the class-action case. You can monitor the most recent
developments if you believe you have a right to pursue
compensation.
You will not be receiving any compensation at this time because the
claim has been closed. In this article we are going to discuss in
detail about how Sony Data Breach Class Action has impacted the
Sony employees and other important factors connected to the
lawsuit.
What is Sony Data Breach Class Action?
When private or sensitive information is accidentally or purposely
made available to an unauthorized individual, it's called a data
breach. The individual who is breaching your privacy may be a
hacker acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a larger
organization.
Hackers stole thousands of current and former Sony employees'
personally identifiable information in 2014, along with the
information of their families. The information included Social
Security numbers, addresses, salaries, and other employment
details, as well as medical information. Part of the information
was then made public online.
According to the lawsuit against Sony, attackers acquired at least
15,000 past and present workers' personally identifying
information, including 47,000 Social Security numbers from people
who had not worked for the company since 1955.
Sony Data Breach Class Action Overview
Article Sony Data Breach Class Action
Country: US
Affected People: Sony Employees
Total Affected: 6800+
For More Details: Click Here
Sony Data Breach Lawsuit Accusations
In the December 18, 2014, complaint, Sony was accused of having a
duty to take reasonable precautions against hacking into its
employees' data. Despite having already fallen victim to one of the
biggest data breaches in history just three years prior, Sony is
said to have violated this obligation by neglecting to make the
necessary investments in sufficient IT protection.
The lawsuit claimed that Sony had engaged in careless behavior and
had broken several California laws, including those pertaining to
the notification of data breaches and the retention of medical
records.
How to get Sony Data Breach Lawsuit Payment?
While facing significant obstacles, Sony has been defending against
the class-action case. You can monitor the most recent developments
if you believe you have a right to pursue the compensation. The
claim has been closed, thus as of right now, you will not be
receiving any compensation.
Who can get Sony Data Breach Lawsuit Payment?
A class settlement that offers up to $4.5 million in compensation
for losses suffered by class members as well as two further years
of identity protection services was approved by the Court in April
2016.
All American workers of Sony, both past and present, as well as
their families, whose personally identifiable information was
exposed in the recent data breach, are represented in the class
action complaint.
FAQs
Is Sony confirming that thousands of Americans were affected by a
data breach?
Sony claimed that no other internal systems were affected by the
MOVEit data leak, which was exclusive to the US file transfer
network.
How did The Sony hack took place?
Malware was utilized to carry out the assault. US-CERT reported
that attackers utilized a Server Message Block (SMB) Worm Tool to
execute assaults against a large entertainment organization, and
Sony was not particularly identified in its advice. [GN]
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Workers' OT, Roper Says
-------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY ROPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00360 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 31, 2023) is a collective
action against the Defendant to recover overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and other applicable penalties brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly
situated call-center employees who have worked for Sutherland
remotely throughout the United States, at any time during the
relevant statutes of limitation and have not been paid for all
hours worked nor the correct amount of overtime in violation of
federal law.
Plaintiff Roper has been employed as a remote Customer Service
Representative in Texas since approximately July 2020.
Sutherland Global Services, Inc. is a business process outsourcing
company with locations across the United States, United Arab
Emirates, the Philippines, Mexico, Great Britain, India, China, and
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
TERRAVITA EDGEWATER: Romero Sues Over Kitchen Workers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN VELIS ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees of Defendants, Plaintiff v. TERRAVITA EDGEWATER
CORP., dba TERRAVITA RESTAURANT, and JOSE ROSA, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-21706 (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2023) seeks
recovery against Defendants for their violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law
(NJSA), the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey sick
leave statute, in violation of NJSA.
According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at
time and one half of their regular rate of pay for their time
worked in excess of 40 hours a week. The Defendants also willfully
failed to properly pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
for all time worked and failed to provide accrued sick leave.
Plaintiff Romero was employed by Defendants initially from in or
about February 2022 to in or about August 2023. Throughout his
employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was performing kitchen
labor duties in furtherance of Defendants' business.
Terravita Edgewater Corp. is a New Jersey-based restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
TETHER LTD: Judge Tosses Class Action Over USDT Stablecoin
----------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Williams, writing for Crypto Potato, reports that a United
States judge has concluded the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
against stablecoin issuer Tether and its affiliate crypto exchange
Bitfinex, two years after the plaintiff made a move against the
firms.
According to a blog post, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
Shawn Dolifka's motion for leave to amend the class suit. Dolifka
has now chosen not to appeal the judge's decision.
The Class Suit
Dolifka filed a class suit against Tether in October 2021, accusing
the company of misleading customers regarding the attributes of its
stablecoin, USDT, and creating a scheme to induce users to purchase
the crypto asset.
With Matthew Anderson, Dolifka accused Tether of falsely
representing USDT reserves, arguing that the company maintained
cash reserves that were less than 4% of the tokens in circulation.
The duo insisted that the reserves did not contain U.S. dollars and
were mostly made up of assets like overcollateralized loans and
other undisclosed commercial paper, and worse still, the firm had
not undergone any professional audits despite promising
transparency to its customers.
In addition, the lawsuit alleged that USDT was not a stablecoin, as
it was not backed 1:1 with the U.S. dollar, as Tether had claimed.
The plaintiffs claimed Tether's alleged misconduct qualified them
to receive compensatory and statutory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees.
"Meritless Claims"
Tether called the lawsuit nonsense and copycat in response, stating
that the plaintiffs and law firm were looking for a payout based on
"meritless claims." The company's CEO, Paulo Ardoino, said the
class suit would bite the dust like others.
With Judge Taylor finalizing the dismissal of the lawsuit, Tether
has reiterated its stance to never fall prey to "shameless
litigation money grabs."
"Quite unlike Dolifka's ill-advised decision to file the action in
the first place, his decision to forego his appeal rights was the
correct decision. His claims were entirely meritless, and no amount
of further litigation would have resulted in Dolifka or his
attorneys realizing anything monetarily or otherwise," Tether
added. [GN]
THRILL KOREAN: Truesdail Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN TRUESDAIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. THRILL KOREAN STEAK and BAR, LLC and JAE YIM
SHIM and K-POP KOREAN BBQ & BAR and SEOUL DAEBAK, LLC and HEART OF
SEOUL KOREAN BBQ LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05002-TWT (N.D.
Ga., Oct. 31, 2023) is a collective action arising from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants' violation of the law resulted from misclassifying
employees, withholding tips, illegal wage deductions, failure to
compensate off the clock work, failure to pay minimum wages,
requiring excessive non-tipped side work, failure to comply with
the strict requirements for an employer to utilize the tip credit
pursuant Section 203(m) and subjecting Plaintiffs to retaliation
when they complained about unfair labor practices, says the suit.
Plaintiff Truesdail was initially hired by Defendants as a
full-time server in August 2020. From August 2020 to April 2021,
Mr. Truesdail worked as a server for approximately 60 hours each
week for 34 weeks.
Thrill Korean Steak and Bar, LLC is a Korean restaurant based in
Sandy Springs, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (470) 207-1559
Facsimile: (470) 231-0672
E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com
- and -
Tia T. Brown, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF THORNTON BROWN, LLC
235 Peachtree Street NE Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 946-8702
Facsimile: (229) 337-5459
E-mail: tjbrown@thorntonbrownlaw.com
TJM SYRACUSE: Appeals Summary Judgment in Jocko Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
TJM SYRACUSE, LLC et al., filed an appeal in the lawsuit styled
Tiara Jocko, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TJM Syracuse, LLC; Richfield Hospitality New York,
LLC; Richfield Hospitality, Inc.; Richfield Syracuse Hotel
Partners, LLC; and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
004569/2019, in the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County.
By complaint filed November 24, 2021, Plaintiff asserts claims
against defendant pursuant to New York Labor Law Section 190 et
seq. and 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 146 et seq. The complaint also
includes causes of action for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment. Defendant TJM answered the complaint on January 28,
2022. Following discovery, both parties moved for summary
judgment.
The Plaintiff opposes Defendant TJM's motion and separately moved
for partial summary judgment based on TJM's failure to remit to its
banquet workers the 22% Service Charge TJM imposed on its banquet
customers, a figure Plaintiff argues was actually a Gratuity. The
Plaintiff also opposes Defendant's assertion that it is entitled to
an offset for wages paid in excess of the statutory tipped minimum
wage.
On June 8, 2023, the Court entered an order holding that
Defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss Plaintiff's
first cause of action is DENIED and Plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment as to liability on its first cause of action is
GRANTED.
In light of the Court's decision in favor of Plaintiff on her
statutory claim under Labor Law and its implementing regulations
under the Wage Order, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
second cause of action for breach of contract was GRANTED.
The appellate case is captioned as TIARA JOCKO et al. vs. TJM
SYRACUSE, LLC et al., Case No. CA 23-01781, in the New York Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department.[BN]
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Use of AI
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Marselas, writing for McKnights Senior Living, reports
that the nation's largest insurer is illegally using programs
driven by artificial intelligence to override the decisions of
medical professionals and wrongfully force residents from nursing
homes, a lawsuit seeking class-action status claims.
A lawyer representing the plaintiffs told Reuters that the class,
if certified by the court, could include tens of thousands of
plaintiffs, and that claims for damages could reach billions of
dollars.
The case is being brought by the estates of Gene B. Lokken and Dale
Henry Tetzloff, both Medicare Advantage beneficiaries whose
coverage for skilled nursing care abruptly was cut off just days
into their stays. Doctors overseeing their treatment insisted that
they needed further in-patient services, but both cases were denied
on appeal. Each family paid for months of continued SNF care
out-of-pocket until both men died earlier this year.
In documents filed on Nov. 14 in US District Court in Minnesota,
attorneys argued that the post-acute care coverage was wrongfully
terminated by UnitedHealthcare using its nH Predict AI Model.
"Defendants failed to use reasonable standards in evaluating the
individual claims of plaintiffs and class members and instead
allowed their coverage needs to be wholly determined by AI," they
wrote.
Insurers have been under increasing scrutiny as the use of AI in
patient-facing decisions becomes more apparent. Congress has held
hearings on denial patterns, and STAT News on Nov. 15 released its
latest investigation into the issue. It cited former
UnitedHealthcare employees who said that claims denials were
aligned with algorithm-based calculations by design, even when it
came to discontinuing coverage for seriously ill patients.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has instituted several
limitations on how MA insurers can deny care in the future, but
those changes don't kick in until Jan. 1. Experts also have said
they are uncertain whether the updated MA rule will have enough
bite to prompt real change by plans.
Only about 10% of claims ever are appealed by residents. The risk
of losing the appeal and being held financially responsible for a
lengthier stay -- such as was the case for the plaintiffs --
continues to discourage requests for review.
"Defendants bank on the patients' impaired conditions, lack of
knowledge and lack of resources to appeal the erroneous AI-powered
decisions," plaintiff attorneys wrote.
UnitedHealthcare did not immediately respond to McKnight's
Long-Term Care News' request for comment, but the company
previously has said that the case is without merit. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Antisemitism Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renée Rochefort, writing for The Ubyssey, reports that Diamond &
Diamond Lawyers has filed a $15 million class action lawsuit
against UBC, the AMS, the Graduate Student Society (GSS) and the
Student Union Okagonon (SUO). It alleges the bodies have been
negligent and failed to uphold a duty of care towards Jewish
students.
The firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of two anonymous plaintiffs,
one current UBC student and one alum, and defined the class of
plaintiffs as Jewish UBC students and alums from 1998 to present.
The lawsuit alleges the university and its students unions have
failed to address, investigate and provide adequate training and
resources to deal with antisemitism at UBC, violating their
"policies and procedures with respect to antisemitic incidents on
campus."
Both the AMS and UBC have policies in place to address
discrimination.
The AMS policy on respectful community and workplace, PC1, has a
zero tolerance clause for discrimination, bullying and harassment,
an violence. UBC's discrimination policy SC7 prohibits
"discrimination on grounds protected by the BC Human Rights Code."
The lawsuit cites a series of events in recent years including
Facebook posts by UBC groups and the vandalism of a student's
mezuzah in UBC residence as evidence for a "well-documented history
of antisemitic sentiments on UBC campuses."
It claims Jewish students have been unable to freely wear religious
and cultural symbols, have been forced out of student unions and
discussions surrounding hate speech on campus and have been
attacked for their Jewish identity in public meetings on campus.
[GN]
WALGREEN CO: Hyland Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Sunscreen
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAKE HYLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-15668 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2023) seeks redress for
Defendant's deceptive and unlawful practice of marketing its
sunscreen products.
According to the complaint, Intending to profit from consumers'
desire to protect their skin from the sun's harmful rays while in
and around water, Defendant falsely markets many of its sunscreen
products as "waterproof." Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action
to stop Defendant's misleading marketing practices and to recover
overcharges paid by himself and the class members.
Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Illinois. The company sells over three hundred types of
sunscreens, including: (a) sunscreens sold under the "Walgreens"
brand; and (b) sunscreens made by other manufacturers such as
Banana Boat, Neutrogena, Hawaiian Tropic, Sun Bum, CeraVe, Eucerin,
Blue Lizard, and La Roche-Posay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone.: (561) 849-8060
E-mail: edwoskin@dwowas.com
WALGREENS CO: Agrees to Settle Blood Testing Suit for $45.33MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Theranos and Walgreens agreed to pay
a combined $45.33 million to resolve claims that Theranos blood
testing services were misleadingly advertised.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Theranos testing
services between November 2013 and June 2016, regardless of whether
they paid for these services out of pocket, through health
insurance or through any other source.
In addition to the national class, the settlement benefits two
statewide subclasses: an Arizona subclass of class members who made
Theranos purchases in Arizona between November 2013 and June 2016
and a California subclass of class members who made Theranos
purchases in California between September 2013 and June 2016.
The settlement also benefits a Walgreens Edison subclass of
Theranos purchasers who were subjected to "tiny" blood draws or
fingerpricks by a Walgreens employee between November 2013 and
March 2015.
According to the class action lawsuit, Theranos and Walgreens
conspired to defraud customers by making them believe they could
have sophisticated blood tests done through only a "tiny" blood
draw. Plaintiffs in the case claim that they gave blood at Theranos
and Walgreens stores under false pretenses since they did not know
the tests were unreliable and not market-ready.
Theranos was a consumer healthcare tech startup company valued at
$10 billion at its peak -- before its founders were charged with
fraud by state and federal authorities. Walgreens invested millions
of dollars into a partnership with Theranos.
Walgreens agreed to pay $44 million to resolve the testing class
action lawsuit. Theranos, which is now dissolved, agreed to
contribute $1.33 million to the settlement fund.
Under the terms of the settlement, all class members can receive a
base payment of $10 in addition to up to two times the total costs
of their Theranos blood testing services, less any payments already
received through the Arizona attorney general's 2017 consent
decree.
Walgreens Edison subclass members can receive an additional payment
as compensation for battery and medical battery. These payments are
estimated to be between $700 and $1,000 per subclass member.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 8, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Feb.
6, 2024.
No claim form is required to receive settlement payments. Class
members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a
settlement payment but can update their address on the settlement
website.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased Theranos testing services between November
2013 and June 2016, regardless of whether they paid for these
services out of pocket, through health insurance or through any
other source.
Two statewide subclasses: an Arizona subclass of class members who
made Theranos purchases in Arizona between November 2013 and June
2016 and a California subclass of class members who made Theranos
purchases in California between September 2013 and June 2016.
Walgreens Edison subclass: Theranos purchasers who were subjected
to "tiny" blood draws or fingerpricks by a Walgreens employee
between November 2013 and March 2015.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Exclusion Deadline
01/08/2024
Case Name
In re: Arizona Theranos Inc. Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-2138-
DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Final Hearing
02/06/2024
Settlement Website
TheranosLawsuit.com
Claims Administrator
In re: Arizona Theranos Inc. Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91214
Seattle, WA 98111
info@TheranosLawsuit.com
866-615-0978
Class Counsel
Mark D Samson
Ron Kilgard
Alison E Chase
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
Michael W Sobol
Roger N Heller
Melissa Gardner
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
Defense Counsel
Kristen R Seeger
Kara L McCall
Lawrence P Fogel
Stephanie C Stern
Andrew F Rodheim
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP [GN]
WILL COUNTY, IL: Part of Foreclosure Filing Class Action Revived
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a state
appeals panel has revived part of a class action facing several
circuit court clerks regarding the propriety of foreclosure filing
fees.
Reuben Walker filed his original lawsuit in October 2012 against
Will County Circuit Court, alleging a mandated $50 filing fee for a
mortgage foreclosure complaint was unconstitutional. At the time,
the Illinois Housing Development Act directed such fees to a social
welfare program.
A judge certified Walker's complaint as a class action while also
certifying as defendants a class including all Illinois circuit
clerks in their official capacities. The Illinois Attorney
General's Office was later allowed to intervene to defend the law.
In November 2013, the plaintiffs won partial summary judgment, as a
judge determined allowing clerks to retain 2% of $50 filing fees
created a fee officer in conflict with a prohibition on such
positions in the state constitution.
On appeal, in 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the
circuit court and remanded the complaint. The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in April 2018 to allege violation of separation
of powers, equal protection, due process and uniformity of burden
principles, claiming the imposition of a fee for purposes unrelated
to the court was unconstitutional and requested creation of a
protest fund to hold all such fees until final disposition of the
litigation.
The plaintiffs again won summary judgment as a circuit court judge
ruled the relevant laws violated the state constitution's equal
protection, due process, uniformity and free access clauses. That
court stayed its permanent injunction pending Supreme Court review,
which reached its resolution in June 2021. The court found the
plaintiffs paid the fees under duress, which meant the voluntary
payment doctrine didn't impede their lawsuit, and agreed about the
violation of the free access clause.
With the remainder remanded, discovery proceeded regarding
restitution. With that ongoing, Will County Circuit Court Clerk
Andrea Chasteen moved for dismissal. In August 2022, Will County
Circuit Court Judge John Anderson dismissed the complaint, saying
restitution needed to be handled in Illinois' Court of Claims so
plaintiffs could attempt to recover money from the state.
Walker and fellow named plaintiff Steven Diamond challenged that
ruling before the Illinois Third District Appellate Court.
Justice Mary McDade wrote the panel's opinion, issued Nov. 15;
Justices William Holdridge and Lance Peterson concurred.
"While the plaintiffs claim there are five issues on appeal, there
is only one -- whether the circuit court erred when it granted
Chasteen's motion to dismiss," McDade wrote. "The primary question
we must answer on appeal is whether jurisdiction over the remainder
of the plaintiffs' case lies with the circuit court or the Court of
Claims. . . . The complex analysis needed to determine whether the
plaintiffs' restitution request in this case is legal or equitable
is not necessary."
The Court of Claims is organized under the Secretary of State's
Office to serve "any citizen with a claim of money damages or
personal injury against a state agency or state employee,"
according to its website, among other functions. McDade said the
Court of Claims has jurisdiction over allegations founded upon
state laws, but not constitutional questions such as those
presented in Walker's lawsuit. Further, the Court of Claims lacks
authority to grant equitable remedies.
The panel further said it would address the question of sovereign
immunity, given that both sides raised the issue, but Judge
Anderson took no position and it is likely to resurface on remand.
McDade explained sovereign immunity doesn't apply when a plaintiff
alleges a state officer exceeded their authority to violate state
law or the state constitution.
"Our Supreme Court held that the relevant statutes were facially
unconstitutional," McDade wrote. "Thus, the defendant circuit court
clerks collected the filing fees from the plaintiffs in violation
of the constitution and absent legal authority to do so;
accordingly, their actions were not considered as actions by the
state."
McDade further said the exception doesn't apply when a plaintiff
seeks only damages, but Walker's complaint sought both restitution
and an injunction to prevent future collection of the contested
fines.
The panel reversed Judge Anderson's ruling and remanded the case
for further proceedings.
Daniel Cray and Melissa Dakich, of Cray Huber Horstman Heil &
VanAusdal, of Chicago, represented the plaintiffs, along with the
Law Offices of Laird M. Ozmon, of Joliet, and attorney Michael
Reagan, of Ottawa.
"The class plaintiffs appreciate the Third District understanding
the law and understanding that this case should remain in the
circuit court," Cray said in a phone interview. He said the circuit
court is the only place his clients "can obtain justice for this
unconstitutional statute being enacted by the Legislature."
He said the state's position would've forced plaintiffs to file a
separate action in the Court of Claims to pursue compensation,
ultimately adding to their expense stemming from a law the Supreme
Court has already said is unconstitutional.
Some plaintiffs have been waiting 13 years for a refund, he said,
and because of a graduated fee structure, some plaintiffs had paid
nearly $1,000 to pursue foreclosure proceedings.
"If (a law) is facially unconstitutional, you get your money back,"
Cray said. "The social programs are fine, but it has to come from
regular taxpayers."
In addition to the Illinois Attorney General's Office, certain
government defendants were represented by Carrie Hass, of Dunn Law
Firm, Bloomington, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office and
the Joliet County State's Attorney's Office.
Under a new state law recently enacted by Illinois state lawmakers
and Gov. JB Pritzker, the plaintiffs in this case would have been
prohibited from challenging the constitutionality of this law in
their home county. Instead, any challenge to any state law can only
be filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago or Sangamon County
Circuit Court in Springfield. [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 ***