/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231124.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 24, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 236 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dube Suit Alleges 7-ELEVEN INC: Verdugo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AEROVIRONMENT INC: Faces Employee Labor Suit in California Court AETNA LIFE: Bid to Decertify Class in Kazda Suit Tossed AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Loper Class Suit in N.Y. ALAN RITCHEY INC: Malloy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALCO HANDLING: Pinto Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Termination AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Simons Class Suit AMERICAN NATIONAL: Little Suit Transferred to D. Mass. ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 6 Oral Argument on Bystolic Suit Set APPLE INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 23, 2024 AUTOLIV INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Airbag Inflators BAIRD MANDALAS: Fails to Properly Evaluate Lawsuit, Hernandez Says BANK OF UTAH: Bid to Certify Class Tossed in Sun Life Suit BIRD RIDES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in A.H. BLUEVINE INC: Bain Lmitd Sues Over Illegal Fund Conversion BRAEMAR HOTELS: Labor Class Suit Discovery Ongoing BYTEDANCE INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 25, 2024 CAREDX INC: Continues to Defend Plumbers Federal Securities Suit CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Mass. COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Cappadora Labor Suit in California Court Tossed COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settles Diaz Labor Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settles Labor Suit in California Court COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle Edwards Labor Suit in California Court COSTCO WHOLESALE: Umadat Labor Suit in California Court Settled CROWN BRIDGE: DarkPulse Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. CSX CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharge CUMULUS MEDIA: Court OK's Settlement of ERISA Suit DYNATA LLC: Davis Appeals Court Orders in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir. EXXON MOBIL: Navarro Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit FIRST CITIZENS: Bethea Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Brown Sues Over Improper Business Practices FLIPPS MEDIA: Solomon Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Burke Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit HAIN CELESTIAL: Gimpel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. HERAEUS PRECIOUS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rose Says INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S: Sues Over Improper Job Classification JAMES PAI: Underpays Bookkeepers & Tax Preparers, Yau Suit Claims KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Environmental Ads "False," Simijanovic Says LORDSTOWN CONSTRUCTION: Discovery Due March 15, 2024 MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Russ Appeals Class Cert Bid Denial to 4th Cir. MERCURY FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Orders in Bailey Suit to 4th Cir. MICHIGAN: Appeals Ruling in Braziel Civil Rights Suit to 6th Cir. NEW YORK, NY: Astacio Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. PASTOSA RAVIOLI: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PLAZA CLUB: Rigsby Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Circuit POPPY + CO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Breslin Suit Says PROG LEASING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Alleges RESCUE DOGS: Donor Alleges Misuse of Donations in Fraud Suit RJ WALKER: Simpson Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff SCALE FACILITATION: Widmer Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cogan Alleges STATE FARM: Faces Young Suit Over Breach of Insurance Contract TEXAS ASSOCIATION: Conspires to Inflate Buyer Broker Commissions UNITED STATES: Sokolich Files Suit Over CBD Tolling Program VIMEO.COM INC: Tejon Sues Over Unwanted Disclosure of Video Info W RESTAURANT SUPPLIES: Faces Salazar FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida WALMART INC: Alvarado Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products WFG NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bautista Alleges Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Has $826MM Net Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $5.3MM Net Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability for Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $103MM Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends 900 New Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Faces Pending PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reports $436MM Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Has 28,000 Claims Filed as of Oct. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Faces 17,220 Pending PI Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Receives 3,353 New PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $218MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Records $2.5MM Insurance Receivables ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Defends Various PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Reports $130.4MM Litigation Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,924 New Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 20,670 Claims as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Defends 128 Personal Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Tech Records $21.7MM Asbestos Charges ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ********* 23ANDME INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dube Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIANA DUBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 23ANDME, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-05768-NC (N.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated 23andMe customers' sensitive information, including their names, sex, date of birth, genetic results, profile photos, and geographic location, referred here as personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's conduct. 23ANDME, INC. provides genetic testing and development services. The Company offers DNA testing for inherited traits, genealogy, and possible congenital risk factors. 23andMe operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Verdugo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7-Eleven, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Lugo Verdugo, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., et al., Case No. 23CV011003 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 2, 2023). 7-Eleven -- http://www.7-eleven.com/-- is the largest convenience store chain in the world.[BN] AEROVIRONMENT INC: Faces Employee Labor Suit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aerovironment, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2023, that on August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. Aerovironment, Inc. is into multi-domain robotic systems and related services based in Virginia. AETNA LIFE: Bid to Decertify Class in Kazda Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHALA KAZDA, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-02512-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order denying the Aetna's motion to decertify class and denying Kazda's motion for summary judgment. The case is a class action brought under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") arising from Aetna's alleged denial of all claims for liposuction surgery to treat lipedema, a rare but painful disease, as "cosmetic." Judge Orrick said, "I previously found that Kazda sought appropriate equitable relief in her breach of fiduciary duty class claims and nothing in Wit II suggests that I should decertify it either. Kazda's motion for summary judgment is also denied. Aetna shows disputed facts material to both the denial of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty claims. It offers testimony from the medical director who reviewed Kazda's claim, along with files of some claims for liposuction that were approved and some that were denied, to show a dispute of material fact whether Aetna categorically denied such claims as cosmetic or individually determined that the requested procedures were not medically necessary." Kazda is a beneficiary under an ERISA-governed health insurance plan through her husband???s employer, Ipsos America, Inc. Aetna offers a broad range of traditional and consumer-directed health insurance products and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SDCquL at no extra charge.[CC] AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Loper Class Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending in September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Loper class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub merged with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, the Company completed the Merger. On July 15, 2021, a purported former Keryx stockholder filed a putative class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Akebia, a current officer of Akebia (John P. Butler), a former officer of Akebia (Jason A. Amello), former directors of Akebia (Muneer A. Satter, Scott A. Canute, Michael D. Clayman, Maxine Gowen, Duane Nash, Ronald C. Renaud, Jr., and Michael S. Wyzga), a current director of Akebia (Cynthia Smith), a former director and officer of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), a former officer of Keryx (Scott A. Holmes) and former directors of Keryx (Michael Rogers, Kevin J. Cameron, Steven C. Gilman, Daniel P. Regan, Mark J. Enyedy, and Michael T. Heffernan, some of whom are current members of our Board of Directors). The action is captioned Loper v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al., or the Loper Action. The complaint in the Loper Action alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. It alleges, among other things, that Akebia failed to disclose heightened safety risks that allegedly threatened the prospects of the Phase 3 PRO2TECT clinical trial and the commercial viability of vadadustat. The complaint in the Loper Action seeks damages including interest thereon, an award of plaintiffs??? and the class's costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and rescission, disgorgement, or such other equitable or injunctive relief that the Court deems appropriate. On August 16, 2021, another purported former Keryx stockholder filed a putative class action making substantially similar allegations and asserting the same claims as the Loper Action, also in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Akebia and many of the same individual defendants named in the Loper Action. The action is captioned Panicho v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al., or the Panicho Action. On September 13, 2021, the parties in the Loper Action and Panicho Action entered into a joint stipulation and proposed order, which provided for the consolidation of the two actions under the caption In re Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, or the Consolidated State Action. On October 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the Consolidated State Action. On January 10, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety. Briefing on defendants??? motion to dismiss was completed on April 22, 2022. Oral argument was held on October 7, 2022, and the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on October 17, 2022, giving plaintiffs thirty days to amend their complaint. On November 16, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, asserting the same claims and seeking the same relief as the consolidated complaint. On January 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in its entirety. Briefing on defendants??? motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint was completed on April 5, 2023. Oral argument is currently scheduled to be held on January 12, 2024. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to continue vigorously defending against the one active stockholder lawsuit Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ALAN RITCHEY INC: Malloy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alan Ritchey, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kenneth Malloy, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. Alan Ritchey, Inc., et al., Case No. 23CV011031 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 2, 2023). Alan Ritchey, Inc. (ARI) -- https://alanritchey.com/ -- is a family owned and operated, multi-industry company that provides services to the government, industrial, agriculture, energy and transportation sectors.[BN] ALCO HANDLING: Pinto Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Termination -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA PINTO, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ALCO HANDLING SERVICE CORP and PATAGONIA SEAFARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24122 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2023) is an action to recover money damages from the Defendant for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendants as scaler from November 2019 until her wrongful termination on September 8, 2023. She worked approximately an average of 45 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which she was employed. She complained about unpaid overtime and unpaid wages and in response, Defendants terminated her employment, says the suit. Alco Handling Service Corp. engages in the warehouse and food processing plants industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julisse Jimenez, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 Facsimile: (305) 209-5754 E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Simons Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Company filed motion to dismiss the Simons class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On August 14, 2023, a putative class action on behalf of APE holders, captioned Simons v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-0835-MTZ (the "Simons Action"), was filed against the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Simons Action asserts claims for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and breach of contract, and alleges that the Settlement Payment in the Shareholder Litigation violates the Certificate of Designations that govern the APEs prior to the conversion of the APEs into Common Stock. On September 12, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides theatrical exhibition, movie screening, food distribution, online ticket booking, and other related services. AMERICAN NATIONAL: Little Suit Transferred to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Deborah Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American National Insurance Company, Case No. 6:23-cv-06447 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12627-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. American National Insurance Company -- https://www.americannational.com/ -- is a major American insurance corporation based in Galveston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Nicole Dapeer DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmen M. Ortega-Rivero Ian M. Ross, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 391-5211 Email: cortegarivero@sidley.com iross@sidley.com ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 6 Oral Argument on Bystolic Suit Set -------------------------------------------------------------- ANI Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Bystolic antitrust class suit oral argument is scheduled on December 6, 2023. On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic. On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints were substantively identical. The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that, beginning in 2012, Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the Company???s January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen. Under the terms of the 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement, Amerigen agreed to indemnify ANI for certain liabilities relating to Bystolic, including liabilities that arose prior to closing of the asset purchase. The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys??? fees. The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other defendants and the Company. The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL). On April 23, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, on that date. The newly amended complaints contained substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the newly amended complaints. After full briefing and oral argument, on February 21, 2023, the court granted the Company and the defendants' motion to dismiss all actions with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit. The matter is fully briefed and oral arguments are scheduled for December 6, 2023. ANI continues to dispute any liability in this matter. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries is a diversified bio-pharmaceutical company serving patients in need by developing, manufacturing, and marketing high quality branded and generic prescription pharmaceuticals, including for diseases with high unmet medical need. It is focused on delivering growth by scaling up our Rare Disease business through the successful launch of our lead asset, "Cortrophin Gel," strengthening its generics business with enhanced development capability, innovation in established brands and leveraging our manufacturing capabilities. APPLE INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 23, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER BRYAN and HERIBERTO VALIENTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00845-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order amending scheduling order as follows: Event Previous New Deadline Deadline Motion for Class Certification Feb. 23, 2024 May 23, 2024 and Expert Reports Opposition to Motion for Class Apr. 26, 2024 July 26, 2024 Certification and Expert Reports Reply in Support of Motion for May 30, 2024 Aug. 29, 2024 Class Certification Hearing on Motion for Class July 18, 2024 Oct. 17, 2024 Certification The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 8, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint on April 22, 2022. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2022. The Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on March 2, 2023. The Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on March 23, 2023. The Court entered a Scheduling Order on April 18, 2023. The Court entered the proposed stipulation regarding discovery of electronically stored information on October 20, 2023. The Court entered the proposed protective order as modified on October 30, 2023. Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40CNzy6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, 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 jmarchese@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. Michael M. Klotz, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 E-mail: mpowers@omm.com mklotz@omm.com AUTOLIV INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Airbag Inflators ------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2023, that in June 2023, several Autoliv subsidiaries were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by David Anderson, et al. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally allege that the defendants have violated various state competition, warranty, and trade practice laws relating to ARC inflators included in airbag modules that the defendants allegedly supplied after Autoliv acquired Delphi Technologies, Inc. in December 2009. Autoliv, Inc. is a US-domiciled, Swedish-headquartered automotive safety supplier with sales to all leading car manufacturers worldwide. BAIRD MANDALAS: Fails to Properly Evaluate Lawsuit, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIFFANY HERNANDEZ and JOSE HERNANDEZ-ALVAREZ, individually and as guardian ad litem for their child L.H., Plaintiffs v. BAIRD MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT & FEDERICO, LLC; CHASE T. BROCKSTEDT; PHILIP C. FEDERICO; BRENT CERYES; STEPHEN A. SPENCE; and SCHOCHOR, STATON, GOLDBERG AND CARDEA, P.A., Defendants, Case No. N23C-11-112 FJJ (Del. Sup. Ct., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence-legal malpractice, recklessness, promissory estoppel-detrimental reliance, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to evaluate the individual claims of people that retained them, including Plaintiffs, in connection with a lawsuit related to the migration of toxic substances, including nitrates through groundwater, from a facility owned and operated by Mountaire Corporation and its affiliates. The Defendants pursued a class action lawsuit without taking into consideration individualized issues that may not be best served by class action litigation. The Defendants engaged in class action settlement discussions that resulted in the creation of a settlement fund in exchange for the release of all claims, including all personal injury claims, by any member of the class. As a result, the Plaintiffs were then thrust into a claims adjudication process that was not designed to compensate L.H., a catastrophically injured child whose injuries are epidemiologically highly associated with nitrate ingestion, says the suit. Baird Mandalas Brockstedt & Federico, LLC is a law firm with its principal place of business in Delaware. Schochor, Staton, Goldberg & Cardea, PA is a law firm located in Baltimore, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 750 Shipyard Dr., Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 BANK OF UTAH: Bid to Certify Class Tossed in Sun Life Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, v. BANK OF UTAH, Case No. 1:21-cv-03973-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order denying: -- BOU's motion to certify class, -- Sun Life's motion for leave to file a surreply, and -- Sun Life's motion for partial summary judgment. The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a proposed amended scheduling order within 14 days of the entry of the Order. Thus, because the evidence presented to the Court shows that there are, at most, fourteen policyholders with a Chapter 93A claim, the motion for class certification of that claim is due to be denied on numerosity grounds. The Court's concerns regarding the STOLI defenses, damages claims, and Rule 23(b)(2) certification also apply here, as does its basis for denying certification of the proposed Rule 23(c)(4) class. Accordingly, the Court will also deny the motion for class certification as to the claims asserted under Chapter 93A The Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is the issuer of the life insurance policy that is at the center of this case. The Policy, which has a face amount of $3 million, was issued on the life of Robert Krasnoff in 2006, when Mr. Kransnoff was 75 years old. BOU now seeks certification of an "Injunction Class" under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certification of an "Issues Class" under Rule 23(c)(4). BOU defines the Injunction Class as follows: "All owners of universal life insurance policies issued by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, or their predecessors and successors, where the policies (a) have a death benefit option that pays specified face amount [sic] plus premiums paid; and (b) provide that the policyowner may change the Death Benefit option after the first policy year ???subject to our administrative rules." The Injunction Class excludes any owner that (i) chose at policy issuance a death benefit option that pays specified face amount plus premiums paid, (ii) policies that terminated for lapse or surrender, or were cancelled, (iii) policies that terminated due to the death of the insured before June 29, 2021, and death benefits were paid, and defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing. In the event that the Court denies the motion to certify the Injunction or Issues Class, BOU alternatively moves to certify a "Four Corners" class as a state-specific Injunction or Issues Sub-Class: "All members of the Injunction and Issues Classes, excluding owners whose policies were issued in Alaska, Arizona, California, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming." Bank of Utah is a federally-insured community bank, with corporate headquarters in Ogden, Utah. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MEhcJD at no extra charge.[CC] BIRD RIDES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in A.H. ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.H., a minor, by and through their mother and next friend, Jashia Johnson v. Bird Rides, Inc., a corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-04163-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Bird Rides provides software solutions. The Company offers application for electric vehicle sharing to find nearby transportation. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QSSyr4 at no extra charge.[CC] BLUEVINE INC: Bain Lmitd Sues Over Illegal Fund Conversion ---------------------------------------------------------- BAIN LMITD INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEVINE INC.; COASTAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION also known as COASTAL COMMUNITY BANK, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 23SMCV05308 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2023) alleges that the Defendants have converted funds which were deposited with the Defendants to safekeep. According to the complaint, the Defendants have converted the funds deposited by the Plaintiff and the Class to the Defendants for safekeep, with malice and intent, with disregard to the Plaintiffs' rights and interests. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' conversion, the Plaintiff and the Class were damaged by amounts to be proven at trial, plus interest, but in no event less than the jurisdictional limits of this court, and attorney's fees and costs, says the suit. BLUEVINE INC. provides a range of deposit products and loans, as well as other services to consumers and businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kousha Berokim, Esq. BEROKIM LAW 270 North Canon Drive, Third Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 846-8553 Facsimile: (310)300-1233 Email: berokim@berokim.com BRAEMAR HOTELS: Labor Class Suit Discovery Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the discovery for labor-related class suit is still ongoing. On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which class action affects two hotels owned by subsidiaries of the Company. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt-out of the class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. The opt out period has been extended until such time that discovery has concluded. In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the class de-certified. The trial court set a due date of August 7, 2023 for the briefs. After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon. If this litigation goes to trial, the Company expects that the earliest the trial would occur is the last quarter of 2023, based on various extensions to which the parties have agreed. While it believes it is reasonably possible that it may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because there remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment laws, it does not believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably estimable at this time. As of September 30, 2023, no amounts have been accrued. Braemar Hotels and Resorts Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a Maryland corporation that invests primarily in high revenue per available room luxury hotels and resorts. BYTEDANCE INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 25, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC. and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered case schedule order pursuant to the Court's August 17, 2023 Order. Deadline to Disclose Identity (Name + Dec. 4, 2023 Brief Description) of Plaintiffs' Experts Deadline to Disclose Identity (Name + Dec. 22, 2023 Brief Description) of Defendants' Experts Deadline to complete fact discovery1 Jan. 31, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs' expert reports Feb. 1, 2024 Deadline for Defendants' expert reports Feb. 22, 2024 Deadline to complete expert discovery Mar. 15, 2024 Motion for Class Certification Mar. 25, 2024 Opposition to Motion for Class Apr. 29, 2024 Certification (including any Daubert motion to Plaintiffs' experts offered in support of class certification) Reply in support of Motion for Class May 20, 2024 Certification (including Plaintiffs' opposition to any Daubert motion filed by Defendants, and any Daubert motion by Plaintiffs to Defendants' experts offered in opposition to class certification) Defendants' opposition to any Daubert May 29, 2024 motion filed by Plaintiff Hearing on Motion for Class Certification June 6, 2024 ByteDance is a technology company that operates a variety of content platforms that inform, educate, entertain, and inspire people. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Syo8fe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Kathleen J. McMahon, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swilliams@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com kmcmahon@saverilawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Leonora Cohen, Esq. Viola H. Li, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com LCohen@gibsondunn.com VHLi@gibsondunn.com CAREDX INC: Continues to Defend Plumbers Federal Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caredx Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Plumbers & Pipefitters federal securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 23, 2022, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund filed a federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Reginald Seeto, its former President, Chief Executive Officer and member of the Company???s Board of Directors, Ankur Dhingra, its former Chief Financial Officer, Marcel Konrad, its former interim Chief Financial Officer and former Senior Vice President of Finance & Accounting, and Peter Maag, its former President, former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Company???s Board of Directors and current member of the Company???s Board of Directors. The action alleges that the Company and the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ???Exchange Act???), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action also alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs??? costs incurred in the lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys??? and experts??? witness fees and other costs. On August 25, 2022, the court appointed an investor group led by the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and appointed Saxena White P.A. and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsels. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 28, 2022. On January 27, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss all claims and to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint. On May 24, 2023, the court granted the Company's motion to strike and motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims against defendants with leave to amend. On June 28, 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the Company, Reginald Seeto, Ankur Dhingra, and Peter Maag. Under a briefing schedule ordered by the court on June 12, 2023, defendants??? motion to dismiss and motion to strike the second amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2023, plaintiffs??? opposition was filed on August 30, 2023, and defendants' reply was filed on September 22, 2023. The court held oral argument on October 31, 2023. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously, and believes that the Company has good and substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the suit, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company has not recorded any liabilities for this suit. CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles River Laboratories International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the securities class suit in the United States Court for the District of Massachusetts. A putative securities class action was filed on May 19, 2023 against the Company and three of its current/former officers (James Foster, the Chief Executive Officer; David R. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer; and Flavia Pease, the current Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint asserts claims under ???? 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company securities from May 5, 2020 through February 21, 2023. The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures about its practices with respect to the importation of non-human primates made during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. On August 31, 2023, the court appointed the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff, and the Company intends to file a motion to dismiss. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it believes the class action to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend against it. CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. provides products and services to help expedite the discovery, early-stage development and safe manufacture of novel drugs and therapeutics. [BN] COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLA OAKLEY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Carla Oakley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Coast Professional, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Mercer County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, is a putative class action alleging deceptive debt collection practices by the Defendants in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). The Plaintiff says that the Defendants sent her collection letters that misrepresented the amount and status of a debt. The Defendants have filed three motions to dismiss on various grounds, including preemption and lack of personal jurisdiction. On May 1, 2023, the Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge David A. Faber on Sept. 29, 2023. The Court determined that there is insufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict finding that the letter sent to Oakley violated either the general or specific provisions of the WVCCPA. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Given the Court's conclusion that the letter does not violate the WVCCPA, the Court has not reached the other arguments advanced by the Defendants. The appellate case is captioned Carla Oakley v. Coast Professional, Inc., Case No. 23-2136, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 31, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CARLA OAKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq. BROADWATER LAW GROUP, PLLC P.O. Box 1636 417 Main Street East Oak Hill, WV 25901 Telephone: (304) 574-2727 - and - Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Defendants-Appellees COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC., et al. are represented by: Michael David Alltmont, Esq. SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC 3850 North Causeway Boulevard Two Lakeway Center Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 828-3700 - and - Albert C. Dunn, Jr., Esq. BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC 500 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-4222 - and - Mary Claire Davis, Esq. WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW 101 Law School Drive Morgantown, WV 26506 Telephone: (304) 395-4378 - and - Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD 500 Virginia Street, East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 348-2419 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Cappadora Labor Suit in California Court Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 "Cappadora v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 1:20-cv-06067, E.D.N.Y., has been dismissed. In December 2020, a former employee filed suit against the company asserting collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay certain non-exempt employees on a weekly basis, and failure to provide proper wage statements and notices. The plaintiff also asserted individual retaliation claims. Based on an agreement in principle concerning settlement of the matter, involving a proposed payment by the company of an immaterial amount, the federal action has been dismissed. 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: Settles Diaz Labor Suit ----------------------------------------- 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 December 2022, case captioned "Diaz v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 22STCV09513 (Los Angeles Superior Court) was settled for an immaterial amount and the case was dismissed. In March 2022, Diaz, an employee filed said class action against the company alleging violations of the California Labor Code regarding the failure to: pay wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final wages, and reimburse business expenses. 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: Settles 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 the final court approval of a settlement was granted on May 3, 2022 with regards to March 2019 a class action filed by employees against the company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief was sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Case was captioned "Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 2:19-cv-03454 (C.D. Cal.). The company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state court. Settlement for an immaterial amount was agreed upon in February 2021. Final court approval of the settlement was granted on May 3, 2022. A proposed intervenor appealed the denial of her motion to intervene, and the appeal was dismissed on February 15, 2023. 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: To Settle Edwards 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 on September 27, 2022, the parties in the case captioned "Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp." Case No. 5:21-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal.) reached a settlement which is subject to court approval. In February 2021, Edwards, a former employee, filed said class action against the company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated employees, 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. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Umadat Labor Suit in California 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 in August 2023, the parties in the case captioned "Umadat v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 2:21-cv-4814 (E.D. N.Y.) reached an agreement in principle on a settlement. In August 2021, a former employee filed said suit, asserting class claims on behalf of certain non-exempt employees under New York Labor Law for failure to pay on a weekly basis. The company filed an answer, denying the material allegations of the complaint. 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. CROWN BRIDGE: DarkPulse Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- DARKPULSE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled DarkPulse, Inc., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Crown Bridge Partners LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-08163-VM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This is a class action against a "death spiral" or "toxic" lender (Crown Bridge) that is controlled and manipulated by the Individual Defendants to carry out a fraudulent scheme to collect upon unlawful debts and otherwise unlawfully obtain repayment of unlawful loans from the Plaintiffs and other Class members through the use of their criminally usurious convertible promissory notes in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On Jan. 13, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Victor Marrero on Sept. 29, 2023. The Clerk's Office was directed to close the case. The appellate case is captioned DarkPulse, Inc. v. Crown Bridge Partners LLC, Case No. 23-7550, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 30, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DARKPULSE, INC., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Eric Benzenberg, Esq. THE BASILE LAW FIRM, P.C. 390 North Broadway, Suite 140 Jericho, NY 11753 Defendants-Appellees CROWN BRIDGE PARTNERS LLC, et al. are represented by: Jeffrey Fleischmann, Esq. Fleischmann PLLC 150 Broadway, Suite 701 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (646) 657-9623 CSX CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharge --------------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated case by individual shippers with regards to a fuel surcharge antitrust litigation. In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. The class action lawsuits were consolidated into one case in federal court in the District of Columbia. In 2017, the District Court issued its decision denying class certification. On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling. CSX Corporation together with its subsidiaries provides rail-based transportation services including traditional rail service, the transport of intermodal containers and trailers, as well as other transportation services such as rail-to-truck transfers and bulk commodity operations. CUMULUS MEDIA: Court OK's Settlement of ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------- Cumulus Media Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 27, 2023, that on July 11, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order granting final approval to a settlement of certain claims in two class action suits. All applicable appeal deadlines have expired and the court's order approving the settlement is now final. The company has made a settlement payment for which it was indemnified by one of its insurance carriers. On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in alleging claims regarding the Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The case alleges that the company breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and costs than other available investment options, causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to monitor other fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of Plan participants from February 24, 2014 through the date of any judgment. On May 28, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 17, 2020, the District Court entered an order dismissing one of the individual plaintiffs and all claims against the company except those that arose on or after February 24, 2019. On March 24, 2021, the company filed a motion seeking dismissal of all remaining claims. On October 15, 2021, the District Court entered an order granting the company's motion and dismissing all remaining claims. On November 12, 2021, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the parties agreed to a settlement, that if granted final approval, will resolve all of the claims against the company on a class-wide basis for the entire Class Period, and will provide the company a general release. On February 16, 2023, the District Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. On July 10, 2023, the court held a fairness hearing. Cumulus Media Inc. is an audio-first media company delivering premium content and engages listeners with high-quality local programming through 403 owned-and-operated radio stations across 85 markets, delivers nationally-syndicated sports, news, talk, and entertainment programming from iconic brands. DYNATA LLC: Davis Appeals Court Orders in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA DAVIS, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Yolanda Davis, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dynata, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01062-SVN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On Nov. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Nov. 30, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. On May 1, 2023, Shiftsmart, Inc. filed motion to stay and to compel arbitration. On Aug. 16, 2023, Shiftsmart filed a motion to strike. On Sept. 25, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Shiftsmart's motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration; granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action; denied Dynata's motion to dismiss; and denied as moot Shiftsmart's motion to strike. The Court also denied Dynata's request to join Shiftsmart's motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Specifically, Shiftsmart's motion was denied with respect to the Plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration provisions in place before October 21, 2022, and was granted with respect to the Plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration provisions introduced thereafter. All litigation with respect to named Plaintiffs Teneshia Bankston and Tiffany Taylor and opt-in Plaintiffs Sasha Watson, Catera Duncan, Toya Shaunnell Kenan, Alisa Charles, was stayed. The Court held that Named Plaintiff Yolanda Davis and opt-in Plaintiffs Margaret Samantha Abernathy, Keshun Durden, Brittni Davis, and Tiara Jones may proceed with their claims in this action. Moreover, the Court granted and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The Court found that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for conditional certification and ordered Dynata to identify all potential members of the collective, as limited by the ruling. The Court ordered the parties to submit a revised joint notice of collective action, in conformance with the ruling, by October 5, 2023. The Court denied Dynata's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. Finally, the Court denied as moot Shiftsmart's motion to strike Plaintiff's notice of additional authority. On Oct. 20, 2023, Dynata filed a motion to stay all proceedings pending disposition of interlocutory appeal on arbitrability. The appellate case is captioned Davis v. Dynata, LLC, Case No. 23-7582, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 1, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants YOLANDA DAVIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Defendant-Appellee SHIFTSMART, INC. is represented by: Thomas C. Blatchley, Esq. GORDON & REES, LLP 95 Glastonbury Boulevard Glastonbury, CT 06033 EXXON MOBIL: Navarro Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NAVARRO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jose Navarro, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is a putative class action seeking to remedy harms arising from the contamination caused by an oil refinery in Torrance, California formerly operated by ExxonMobil Corporation, currently operated by Torrance Refining Company LLC. Due to Defendants' negligence, the Refinery has emitted, and continues to emit, harmful contaminants into the groundwater, soil vapor, and air, presenting substantial health impacts to the surrounding community. On Mar. 24, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Navarro filed a Fourth Amended Complaint against the Defendants. On Apr. 7, 2023, Defendant Torrance Refining Company, LLC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On Aug. 28, 2023, Defendant Torrance Refining Company, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Dale S. Fischer on Oct. 18, 2023. Judge Fischer ruled that the Plaintiff takes nothing; the action is dismissed with prejudice; and the Defendant recovers costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S. Code section 1920. The appellate case is captioned Navarro, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-3274, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 2, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 7, 2023; -- Appellant Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 13, 2023; -- Appellant Appeal Transcript is due on December 13, 2023; -- Appellant Appeal Opening Brief is due on January 22, 2024; and -- Appellant Appeal Answering Brief is due on February 21, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE NAVARRO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Defendants-Appellees EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Lauren Kaplan, Esq. Dawn Sestito, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Mark Randall Oppenheimer, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Mark E. Elliott, Esq. Michael J. Finnegan, Esq. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 725 S. Figueroa Street, 36th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 FIRST CITIZENS: Bethea Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIANA BETHEA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Briana Bethea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02790-BHH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, as well as monetary damages, to redress the Defendants' unlawful employment practices, including unlawful discrimination, against the Plaintiff in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Plaintiff, individually and as class representative of the putative classes, and classes of similarly situated Black and/or female current and former employees of First Citizens are victims of discriminatory barriers to equal opportunity advancement, which has included the unlawful denial of promotions, compensation commensurate with white male employees, and equality with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment, including, in many cases, the wrongful termination of such employment, says the suit. On Dec. 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On Jan. 9, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. On July 26, 2023, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry filed a Report and Recommendation to grant the Defendants' motions to dismiss, which the Plaintiff moved to oppose on Aug. 9, 2023. On Sept. 27, 2023, Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks adopted Judge Cherry's Report and Recommendation and granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. On Sept. 28, 2023, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is captioned Briana Bethea v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Case No. 23-2142, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 1, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRIANA BETHEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. Paul Judson Doolittle, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. POULIN, WILEY, ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 - and - Nicholas B. Corser, Esq. F. Beau Howard, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 999 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 870-3765 (404) 870-3763 - and - Molly Renee Hamilton Cawley, Esq. MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A. 100 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (843) 225-8651 - and - Casey Merrell Martens, Esq. KIM AND LAHEY LAW FIRM 3620 Pelham Road Greenville, SC 29615 Telephone: (828) 545-2036 Defendants-Appellees FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Michael Kevin McCarrell, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2 West Washington Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 751-7652 - and - Phillips Lancaster McWilliams, Esq. Stephen C. Mitchell, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 1320 Main Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 740-7672 - and - John Hagood Tighe, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP P.O. Box 11612 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 255-0000 FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Brown Sues Over Improper Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEONNA BROWN; KATHERINE BURNETT; CHRIS GOLDEN; IRENE HARDIN; FIZA JAVID; JOJO JENKINS; KRYSTYNA MACHUTA; NICHOLAS MAHON; SAIRA MUELLER; and SHARVIA SULTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a LA FITNESS; ESPORTA FITNESS; and CITY SPORTS CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-02109 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2023) alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive and predatory cancellation policies to continuously gain a profit from consumers who no longer wish to utilize gym membership services. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant violated membership agreements with the Plaintiff and the Class by failing to abide by cancellation policies in their contracts. The Defendant deceived new members by promoting "no hassle" cancellations in order to get them to sign up for gym memberships but failed to disclose the true nature of its cancellation policies. As a result, consumers were continuously charged membership fees after making good faith efforts to cancel their policies, says the suit. LA FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC operates sports and fitness clubs. The Company offers exercise equipment, fitness classes and programs, personal trainers, sports leagues, and education on healthy living. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jill J. Parker, Esq. PARKER & MINNE, LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 882-6833 Facsimile: (310) 889-0822 Email: jill@parkerminne.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: dperry@masonllp.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Sara J. Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOC., P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com FLIPPS MEDIA: Solomon Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- DETRINA SOLOMON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Detrina Solomon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Flipps Media, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-05508-JMA-JMW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Defendant alleging that it has violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The Plaintiff's claims are premised on the Defendant's installation and use of a tracking product on its website and apps called the "Pixel." The Pixel code was developed by and promoted by Facebook, Inc. On Feb. 7, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on Sept. 30, 2023. The Court concluded that Solomon has not plausibly alleged that the content that is advertised as live on the Defendant's site actually qualifies as pre-recorded for purposes of the VPPA. The Court found that these allegations are insufficient, particularly given the preference of many viewers to watch sporting events live; to plausibly allege that the Plaintiff actually accessed any prerecorded video. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the Plaintiff leave to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The appellate case is captioned Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., Case No. 23-7597, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 1, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DETRINA SOLOMON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 - and - Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Esq. HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Defendant-Appellee FLIPPS MEDIA, INC. is represented by: Brendan Michael Walsh, Esq. PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, P.C. Court Plaza South, Suite 200 21 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Burke Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI C. BURKE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Heidi C. Burke, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02352-NJB-MBN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On July 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants on behalf of a class of all insureds who were paid by GeoVera Specialty for insured property damage occurring after August 1, 2021 and whose damage value was reduced because GeoVera Specialty applied a predetermined depreciation schedule to damaged roofing systems. On Aug. 22, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Jay C. Zainey. The Court concluded that all of the elements necessary to support res judicata in favor of GeoVera Specialty are satisfied and the motion to dismiss is granted. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Burke v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance, Case No. 23-30773, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on November 2, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants HEIDI C. BURKE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Anthony D. Irpino, Esq. IRPINO, AVIN & HAWKINS LAW FIRM 2216 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-1500 - and - Charles Ferrier Zimmer, II, Esq. DAVILLIER LAW GROUP, LLC 935 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 582-6998 Defendants-Appellees GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Wystan Michael Ackerman, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE, L.L.P. 280 Trumbull Street 1 Commercial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8388 - and - Seth Andrew Schmeeckle, Esq. LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD 601 Poydras Street Pan American Life Center New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 568-1998 HAIN CELESTIAL: Gimpel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------- SALAMON GIMPEL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled In Re The Hain Celestial Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-04581, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain securities between November 5, 2015, and August 15, 2016, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials. On May 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint. On June 20, 2019, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint for failure to state a claim. On Nov. 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst filed a Report and Recommendation to grant the Defendants' motions to dismiss the case with prejudice, which the Plaintiffs moved to oppose on Dec. 7, 2022. On Sept. 29, 2023, Judge Joanna Seybert adopted Magistrate Judge Dunst's Report and Recommendation and granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. The Court held that the Magistrate Judge's scienter-related recommendations are thorough and well-reasoned. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' scienter-related objections are overruled. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment accordingly and, thereafter, mark the case closed. The appellate case is captioned In Re The Hain Celestial Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 23-7612, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 2, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SALAMON GIMPEL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christine M. Fox, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway 34th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Defendants-Appellees THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., et al. are represented by: John M. Hillebrecht, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4590 HERAEUS PRECIOUS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BLANCA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERAEUS PRECIOUS METALS NORTH AMERICA, LLC; HERAEUS PRECIOUS METALS NA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV27667 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 9, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a staff. HERAEUS PRECIOUS METALS NORTH AMERICA, LLC manufactures organic compounds. The Company offers photo acid generators, monomers, resins, molding compounds, pharmaceutical raw materials, intermediates, specialty chemicals, custom formulations, and polymers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123, Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 Email: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rose Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ROSE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09123 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard individuals' sensitive personal data. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and other proposed Class members??? Sensitive Information, including confidential medical information, was accessed and taken by unauthorized third parties as a result of Defendants' inadequate data security and inadequate or negligent training of their employees. While Defendants learned of the breach on August 2, 2023, they waited till September 29, 2023 to notify Plaintiff and other Class members, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' failures to implement and follow reasonable security procedures, Class members' Sensitive Information is now exposed. The Plaintiff and Class members have spent, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and money trying to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the data breach and dealing with actual fraud and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit alleges. International Business Machines Corporation is a multinational technology company that provides infrastructure, software and consulting services for clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com - and - Matthew M. Loker, Esq. LOKER LAW, APC 1303 East Grand Avenue, Ste. 101 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Telephone: (805) 994-0177 Facsimile: (805) 994-0197 E-mail: matt@loker.law INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S: Sues Over Improper Job Classification ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN DODD; RICHARD SMITH; and AMANDA HAMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION; and INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1475 CLERKS AND CHECKERS UNION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00327-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., Nov. 9, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs and the Class. The Defendants urged the Georgia Stevedore Association, where the Plaintiffs are members, to enter into an agreement that split the job assignment classification to which Plaintiffs are assigned to (i.e., Class HH) into two Subclasses, (i.e., HH1 and HH2). Under this agreement and as of June 19, 2023, a cohort largely composed of the family and friends of Local 1475 leaders were placed in a new job assignment classification known as Subclass HH1. Consequently, they were afforded favorable job assignment preference at the expense of the Subclass HH2 members, resulting in a dramatic loss of pay and benefits to the members of Subclass HH2. These actions violated the unions' duty of fair representation to the Proposed Class. As a direct result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and other members of the Proposed Class have suffered lost wages, health insurance benefits, pension benefits, royalties, vacation and holiday pay, and seniority, says the suit. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION is proud to represent the union clerks and checkers serving the Port of Savannah, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq. DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC 101 Marietta Street Suite 2650 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 Email: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com JAMES PAI: Underpays Bookkeepers & Tax Preparers, Yau Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- NANG KIT YAU and WENLU WENG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES PAI CPA PLLC, ONE ACCOUNTING CORP., and JAMES PAI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09997 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay proper overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide wage notice. Plaintiffs Yau and Weng were employed by the Defendants as bookkeepers, tax preparers, and non-CPA accountants from in or around late September 2021 to on or about April 18, 2022 and from in or around April 16, 2018 to in or around late January 2022, respectively. James Pai CPA LLC is an accounting firm with its principal place of business at 139 Centre St., New York, New York. One Accounting Corp. is an accounting firm with its principal place of business at 139 Centre St., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Environmental Ads "False," Simijanovic Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEVAN SIMIJANOVIC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12882-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Michigan Consumer Protection Act and for fraud. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines' services. The Defendant's environmental benefit claims include "Fly Responsibly" and "Sustainability," which tell customers its commitment to limit global warming and the targets defined in the Paris Climate Agreement. However, these claims lack qualifying language which makes clear the limitations of its actions to support them. 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. Though KLM attempts to specify its environmental initiatives with facts and figures, the result is consumers being misled. As a result of the false and misleading representations and omissions about its environmental initiatives, flights on KLM cost more than on other airlines, higher than similar airline flights, represented in a non-misleading way, says the suit. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. is an airline operator based in the Netherlands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com LORDSTOWN CONSTRUCTION: Discovery Due March 15, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARI NAGY, v. LORDSTOWN CONSTRUCTION RECOVERY, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01376-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered a case management conference order as follows: -- Parties shall engage in mediation Nov. 30, 2023 by: -- Discovery on certification issues March 15, 2024 shall be completed by: -- Plaintiff's deadline for disclosing March 29, 2024 expert(s) on certification issues, providing all required expert disclosures, and producing expert report(s): -- Defendant's deadline to depose April 26, 2024 Plaintiff's expert(s): A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qx2q8N at no extra charge.[CC]??? MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Russ Appeals Class Cert Bid Denial to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELLEN RUSS is taking an appeal from a court order denying her motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Ellen Russ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00187-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Horry County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, involves a putative class of over ten thousand fractional owners of time-share units whose property in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina is sustaining water damage due to defective construction of and repairs to the exterior of the buildings. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are responsible for defects in the exterior envelope of the buildings. On Sept. 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the Defendants moved to oppose on Mar. 30, 2023. On May 15, 2023, the Defendants file a joint motion to strike, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Joseph Dawson, III on July 13, 2023. The Court also denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. On Aug. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on Oct. 13, 2023. The Court determined there is no commonality or typicality, and by extension, no predominance as to all of the Plaintiff's causes of action and denied class certification as to the same. The court held that the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate an error of law or manifest injustice. Therefore, the Court's Order to grant the Defendants' motion to strike and to deny the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is not a clear error causing manifest injustice, nor has there been a subsequent trial producing substantially different evidence or a change in applicable law. Accordingly, there is no basis to reconsider the Court's prior Order. The appellate case is captioned Ellen Russ v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Case No. 23-277, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner ELLEN RUSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Christopher Moore, Esq. Terry E. Richardson, Jr., Esq. Grace Babcock, Esq. RICHARDSON, THOMAS, HALTIWANGER, MOORE & LEWIS, LLC 1513 Hampton Street, First Floor Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 281-8150 E-mail: chris@richardsonthomas.com grace@richardsonthomas.com terry@richardsonthomas.com - and - Robert L. Wylie, IV, Esq. James L. Hills, Jr., Esq. MULLEN WYLIE, LLC Post Office Box 1980 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Telephone: (843) 449-4800 E-mail: rwylie@mullenwylie.com jhills@mullenwylie.com - and - George E. Mullen, Esq. P.O. Box 5969 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Telephone: (843) 785-6969 E-mail: gmullen@mullenwylie.com Defendants-Respondents MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., et al. are represented by: Robert C. Calamari, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 3751 Robert M. Grissom Parkway Pinnacle Corporate Center Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Telephone: (843) 946-5660 - and - Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq. Donna Ojetta Tillis, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 1320 Main Street Columbia, SC 29206 Telephone: (803) 799-2000 (803) 255-9327 - and - John Edward Cuttino, Esq. GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA P.O. Box 7368 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 724-1714 - and - Brittany T. Bihun, Esq. Kerry K. Jardine, Esq. A. Victor Rawl, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 40 Calhoun Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 278-5900 (843) 714-2520 (843) 714-2501 - and - Michael S. Seekings, Esq. MICHAEL S. SEEKINGS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PA 40 Calhoun Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 853-5353 - and - Paul E. Sperry, Esq. Kent Taylor Stair, Esq. COPELAND, STAIR, VALZ & LOVELL, LLP 40 Calhoun Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 727-0307 - and - Gary S. Kessler, Esq. MALOUF, LYNCH, JACKSON, KESSLER & COLLINS 700 Preston Commons West 8117 Preston Road Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: (214) 750-0722 - and - Lawrence Bradley Orr, Esq. ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC 504 Coit Street P.O. Box 2527 Florence, SC 29503 Telephone: (843) 667-6613 - and - James Atkinson Bruorton, IV, Esq. Elizabeth Foy Nicholson, Esq. ROSEN HAGOOD, LLC 40 Calhoun Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 577-6726 - and - Patrick J. McDonald, Esq. Amanda L. Perry, Esq. RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 146 Fairchild Street Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 270-0675 (843) 266-8138 - and - Phillip Paul Cristaldi, III, Esq. Jeffrey A. Ross, Esq. ROSS & CRISTALDI, LLC 863 Coleman Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 329-4040 - and - Jonathan Joel Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON REYNOLDS & STEPHENS, LLC 37 1/2 Broad Street P.O. Box 87 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 723-0185 - and - Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr., Esq. Barbara J. Wagner, Esq. BARNWELL WHALEY PATTERSON & HELMS, LLC P.O. Drawer H Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 577-7700 - and - Franklin H. Turner, III, Esq. ROGERS TOWNSEND, LLC 1221 Main Street Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 771-7900 - and - Jordan C. Davis, Esq. S. Markey Stubbs, Esq. BAKER, RAVENEL & BENDER, LLP P.O. Box 8057 Columbia, SC 29202 - and - Greg Horton, Esq. Matthew E. Tillman, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 722-3400 (843) 720-4629 - and - James Lloyd Williams, Esq. COLLINS & LACY, PC P.O. Box 12487 Columbia, SC 29211 - and - Cameron D. Berthelsen, Esq. James H. Elliott, Jr., Esq. RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA P.O. Box 21203 Charleston, SC 29413 - and - Mark Brandon Goddard, Esq. William Taylor Stanley, Esq. TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, PA 1901 Main Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 227-4334 (803) 227-4215 - and - Timothy Dargan, Esq. Kevin W. Mims, Esq. LUZURIAGA MIMS LLP 50 Immigration Street Charleston, SC 29403 MERCURY FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Orders in Bailey Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MERCURY FINANCIAL, LLC is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Angelita Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mercury Financial, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00827-DKC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. On Jan. 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a complaint, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made loans without a license in violation of the Maryland Consumer Loan Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's collection on its void and unenforceable loans also violates the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and gives rise to claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The Defendant timely removed this matter from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. On Mar. 31, 2023, the Defendant moved to compel arbitration, stay proceedings, and strike class allegations pursuant to the arbitration provision within the cardholder agreement. On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiff responded in opposition. On July 24, 2023, the Plaintiff moved for leave to file a surreply. On Sept. 26, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply and denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and to strike class allegations. The Court ruled that while the Defendant's first, second, and fifth arguments are new, a surreply to those arguments is unnecessary because the Court does not rely on them to make its decision. The Court though granted the Plaintiff's motion to file a surreply with respect to the Defendant's argument that federal law requires the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff advance notice of unilateral modifications to the cardholder agreement's arbitration provision. On the other hand, because the cardholder agreement's arbitration provision is illusory, it cannot enforce any of its terms. Hence, the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and to strike class allegations is denied. The appellate case is captioned Angelita Bailey v. Mercury Financial, LLC, Case No. 23-2133, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ANGELITA BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq. Richard Scott Gordon, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY 11350 McCormick Road Executive Plaza I Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 Defendant-Appellant MERCURY FINANCIAL, LLC is represented by: Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-4716 - and - Melissa O. Martinez, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 500 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 659-4505 MICHIGAN: Appeals Ruling in Braziel Civil Rights Suit to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants MARCUS MUHAMMAD, Mayor at City of Benton Harbor, individually and in his official capacity, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's order entered in the lawsuit entitled DARETHA BRAZIEL, et al., Plaintiffs v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00960-HYJ-PJG, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Plaintiffs are residents of Benton Harbor, Michigan, who allegedly consumed water containing lead, bacteria, and other contaminants from Benton Harbor???s water supply. They brought this action against the City of Benton Harbor, some of its present and former officials, the State of Michigan, several state agencies and officials, and two private engineering firms. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint contains six claims. Count I asserts that the individual Defendants who worked for the State of Michigan or the City violated Plaintiffs' right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count II asserts that the City is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of its "official policymakers" under Monell v. Department of Social Services Count III asserts that the City is liable for unjust enrichment because Plaintiffs paid for contaminated water that was unfit for consumption. Counts IV and V assert that Defendants Elhorn Engineering Company and F&V Operations and Resource Management, Inc. are liable for negligence because they failed to exercise due care when selecting or using anti-corrosion chemicals to treat the City's water problems. Finally, Count VI asserts that Defendant Michael O'Malley, the former Manager of the City's Water Department, was grossly negligent in his duties when responding to the City's water problems. The Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the federal claims in the complaint on December 16, 2022. On June 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green entered a Report and Recommendation that the Court grant most of the motions, deny another, and dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. On October 4, 2023, the District Court adopted the R&R in part and rejected it in part. The Court dismissed all Defendants other than Defendants O'Malley, Muhammad, and the City. The R&R is REJECTED insofar as it concluded (1) that Plaintiffs fail to state a federal claim against Defendants Muhammad, O'Malley, and the City of Benton Harbor; and (2) that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims because the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiffs' federal claims. Instead, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs state a substantive due process claim against Defendants Muhammad, O'Malley, and the City of Benton Harbor. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for different reasons. The appellate case is captioned as Daretha Braziel, et al. v. Gretchen Whitmer, et al., Case No. 23-1954, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 27, 2023.[BN] Defendants-Appellants MARCUS MUHAMMAD, Mayor, individually and in his official capacity, et al., Alexandra Markel, Esq. Thomas J. Rheaume, Jr., Esq. Erica Shell, Esq. BODMAN 1901 Saint Antoine Street, Sixth Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 259-7777 Plaintiffs-Appellees DARETHA BRAZIEL, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Plaintiff Residents of the City of Benton Harbor, Michigan, next friend of RB, next friend of DB, next friend of DR, et al., are represented by: Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 222 Second Avenue, S. Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201-2379 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 - and - Carl Ray Edwards, Esq. LAW OFFICE 65 Cadillac Square, Suite 2710 Detroit, MI 48226-0000 Telephone: (313) 961-5000 - and - Amelia Haselkorn, Esq. Tiseme G. Zegeye, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 - and - Alice B. Jennings, Esq. EDWARDS & JENNINGS 3031 W. Grand Boulevard, Suite 435 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 961-5000 - and - Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 250 Hudson Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 - and - Stuart Talley, Esq. KERSHAW, CUTTER, RATINOFF & YORK 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1900 Sacramento, CA 95814-2719 Telephone: (916) 779-7000 NEW YORK, NY: Astacio Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- DOLORES ASTACIO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Dolores Astacio, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06862, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The nature of suit is stated as Accommodations Civil Rights. On September 29, 2023, the Court granted in full a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. The appellate case is captioned Astacio v. The City of New York, Case No. 23-7598, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 2, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DOLORES ASTACIO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Dennis J. Kelly, Esq. KELLY & GROSSMAN, LLP 1248 Montauk Highway West Islip, NY 11795 Defendants-Appellees THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by: Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 PASTOSA RAVIOLI: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PASTOSA, RAVIOLI, MACARONI, AND NOODLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08044-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.pastosa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff has visited the website on October 13, 2023 and again on October 15, 2023 using a screen-reader. Specifically, Plaintiff intended to purchase the Tri-Color Cheese Filled Tortellini. She asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. Pastosa, Ravioli, Macaroni, and Noodle Corporation is a New York-based company which manufactures Italian pasta sauces, cheeses and other food items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com PLAZA CLUB: Rigsby Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYANN RIGSBY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Ryann Rigsby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Plaza Club City Apartments LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00061-BCW, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. On June 30, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Brian C. Wimes on Oct. 4, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Ryann Rigsby v. Plaza Club City Apartments LLC, Case No. 23-3409, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 31, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before December 11, 2023; -- Appendix is due on December 20, 2023; -- Appellant Ryann Rigsby is due on December 20, 2023; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RYANN RIGSBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Taylor Foye, Esq. Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. HORN & AYLWARD Suite 1100 2600 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Defendant-Appellee PLAZA CLUB CITY APARTMENTS LLC is represented by: Ronald Balfour, Esq. Michael M. Chang, Esq. AMUNDSEN & DAVIS Suite 3300 150 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 894-3369 (312) 455-3035 - and - Abbigale A. Gentle, Esq. Joseph J. Roper, Esq. WATTERS & WOLF Suite 920 4435 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 POPPY + CO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Breslin Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- ANNA BRESLIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v ALEXIS KACLIK; and POPPY + CO. BEAUTY LOUNGE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-14359-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Breslin was employed by the Defendants as a hair stylist. POPPY + CO. BEAUTY LOUNGE LLC operates as a boho chic salon located in Stuart, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth Coke, Esq. COKE EMPLOYMENT LAW 131 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204 Fort Pierce, FL 34950 Telephone: (772) 252-4230 Facsimile: (772) 252-4575 Email: Beth@cokeemploymentlaw.com PROG LEASING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- DAWN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROG LEASING, LLC d/b/a PROGRESSIVE LEASING, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02327 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2023) alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class' personal information was compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, disclose their inadequate security procedures and practices, effectively monitor their systems for security vulnerabilities, and timely detect, report, and disclose the data breach. According to the complaint, on or around September 11, 2023, the Defendant was the target of a massive data breach in which approximately 193,055 U.S. customers were subject to an unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure of their personal information. Outside parties accessed a trove of personal details about Defendant's Customers, such as names, dates of birth, addresses, email addresses, Social Security numbers, credit card or account information, income information, and financial account numbers -- stored on Defendant's servers. As a result of the Defendant's lax security, outside parties have accessed Plaintiff's and Class Members' PI in a readily usable form that is potentially of great value to them. Plaintiff and Class Members are thus exposed to criminals seeking to use the PI for nefarious and illegal activities, such as identity theft schemes, says the suit. PROG LEASING, LLC d/b/a PROGRESSIVE LEASING provides commercial equipment finance and leasing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: rick@dovel.com simon@dovel.com RESCUE DOGS: Donor Alleges Misuse of Donations in Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Arlene Dean, of Ulster County New York, a donor to animal rescues, on November 2, 2023, filed a Class Action Federal RICO and Charity Fraud suit in the Northern District of New York, Case No. 23-01370, against Rescue Dogs Rescue Soldiers and other persons and entities located in Cherry Valley, New York, alleging they organized to defraud the donors of hundreds of thousands annually for years to a sham dog rescue, and using the donations for the personal benefit of the board and their friends; including amassing an over $1 million real estate portfolio and a 10-bedroom estate for President Elizabeth Keller. A copy of the complaint is available at https://bit.ly/49ooeMb Rescue Dogs is a partner of the New York City Animal Care and Control (NYCACC) shelter that sends stray dogs to their Cherry Valley sanctuary to train them for disabled war veterans, as Rescue Dogs, charitable mission filed with New York State Department of Corporations and their website and Facebook pages state to the public to get for donations. Donors in New York and nationwide made hopeful investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars for years believing the dogs received great care at a sanctuary and trained for soldiers to adopt, but "there is no care, no sanctuary and no soldiers -- just a living hell for the dogs that violates consumer fraud and state charity laws that should end this sham," says Susan Chana Lask, Esq., attorney for Dean. The case is Arlene Dean, individually & for all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rescue Dogs Rescue Soldiers Corp., Glen Wild Animal Rescue Corp., El-liza's Dog House, Inc., Elizabeth Keller, Matthew Greenberg, Eva Synek, Jane Hoffman, Ellen B. Stewart, Isaiah Bowen, Donna Fowler, and Does 1-10 being those persons who are accountants, veterinarians, working, volunteering or associated with Rescue Dogs Rescue Soldiers Corp., El-liza's Dog House Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-1370 (N.D.N.Y.). Meta Platforms, Inc., is also designated as a party-in-interest for purposes of subpoenas and notice regarding the unlawful use and TOS violations of its platform by Defendants. Arlene Dean and the putative class is represented by: Susan Chana Lask, Esq. Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask 244 Fifth Avenue, Suit 2369 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (917) 300-1958 E-mail: scl@appellate-brief.com RJ WALKER: Simpson Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- GREG SIMPSON and MARY PAUOLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RJ WALKER V, LLC d/b/a MY FATHER'S MOUSTACHE and ROBERT J. WALKER, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05808-RMG (D.S.C., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. Mr. Simpson and Ms. Pauole were employed by the Defendants as bartenders and servers from approximately February 2017 to November 2023 and from approximately October 2013 to October 2023, respectively. RJ Walker V, LLC, doing business as My Father's Moustache, is a restaurant owner and operator based in Charleston County, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 Facsimile: (843) 614-6417 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com SCALE FACILITATION: Widmer Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS WIDMER, LINDSEY ROOT, and SOPHIA FITZSIMONDS, in their individual capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCALE FACILITATION, DAVID A. COLLARD, VANESSA GERONIMO, MICHAEL WINN, AND JACKIE NOLLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09482 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023) is an action seeking equitable and legal relief including applicable damages and attorney's fees for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and applicable wage orders. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants paid wages late and also unlawfully failed to pay their wages; made unlawful deductions from their wages for wire transfers and healthcare benefits and taxes while not actually sending the deducted wages to the appropriate parties; and failed to provide them with pay notice and stubs pursuant to the NYLL. Plaintiffs Widmer, Root, and Fitzsimonds were employed by Defendant Scale as Senior Manager of Marketing Strategy, Office Manager, and Intern, respectively. Scale Facilitation is an investment management firm focused on scaling technology and other innovations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick Boyd, Esq. THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 867-3675 Facsimile: (212) 867-5765 E-mail: pboyd@theboydlawgroup.com SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cogan Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MARY COGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKIDMORE COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01409-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, on February 17, 2023, an unauthorized actor gained access to the Defendant's network and obtained unauthorized access to Defendant's files. 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. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class is presently and will continue to be at a present and heightened risk for financial fraud, identity theft, other forms of fraud, and the attendant damages, the suit asserts. SKIDMORE COLLEGE is a private liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs, New York. [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 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 212 W. Spring Valley Road Richardson, TX 75081 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com STATE FARM: Faces Young Suit Over Breach of Insurance Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA CELESTE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00175-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, negligence and/or gross negligence, bad faith, and declaratory judgment and relief. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of using the New Construction Labor Efficiency setting within Xactimate, a software program, in adjusting the Plaintiff's and similarly situated insureds' property loss claims. This selection reduced the benefits to be paid by altering and suppressing the allowable labor and material costs necessary to remediate the loss. The new construction setting, as opposed to Restoration/Service/Remodel Labor Efficiency, reduces the allowable labor and/or material charges for a specific task entry. State Farm's practice of calculating actual cash value (ACV) by using the new construction setting for claims where there has been a loss where additional labor and/or material costs, as set forth herein are necessary, are not included, but rather artificially and improperly excluded from the ACV calculation, is a breach of its policy, says the suit. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance company, with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David McMullan, Jr., Esq. John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Anthony Sakalarios, Esq. Chuck Blackwell, Esq. SAKALARIOS, BLACKWELL, SCHOCK, PLLC 1817 Hardy St. Hattiesburg, MS 39401 E-mail: asakalarios@sbslawfirm.net cblackwell@sbslawfirm.net - and - Mark A. Nelson, Esq. Ned A. Nelson, Esq. NELSON LAW PLLC 7 Woodstone Plaza Ste. 7 Hattiesburg, MS 39402 E-mail: mark@nelsonfirm.law ned@nelsonfirm.law - and - Nicholas A. Sakalarios, Esq. 7 Woodstone Plaza Ste. 7 Hattiesburg, MS 39402 E-mail: nick@sakalarioslaw.com - and - John M. Deakle, Esq. Ronald V. Johnson, IV, Esq. Russell L. Johnson, Esq. Richard J. LaJaunie, Esq. DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC 802 Main St. Hattiesburg, MS 39401 E-mail: rjlajaunie@djlawms.com jmd@deaklelawfirm.com rvjohnson@djlawms.com rljohnson@djlawms.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP P.O. Box 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com - and - Alvah H. Pasley, Esq. D. Chad Nuce, Esq. PASLEY, NUCE, MALLORY & DAVIS, LLC 300 W. Gordon St. Thomaston, GA 30286 E-mail: apasley@pnlawgroup.com cnuce@pnlawgroup.com - and - J. Mark Deakle, Esq. Jubal L. Hamil, Esq. DEAKLE, SHOLTIS & HAMIL, LLC P.O. Box 1031 Mobile, AL 36633 E-mail: mdeakle@dshfirm.com jhamil@dshfirm.com TEXAS ASSOCIATION: Conspires to Inflate Buyer Broker Commissions ---------------------------------------------------------------- QJ TEAM, LLC, and FIVE POINTS HOLDINGS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., AUSTIN BOARD OF REALTORS, SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF REALTORS, INC., METROTEX ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., HOUSTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ABA MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., PENFED REALTY, LLC, EBBY HALLIDAY REAL ESTATE, LLC, THE DAVE PERRY-MILLER COMPANY, KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., HEYL GROUP HOLDINGS LLC, THE LOKEN GROUP, INC., HEXAGON GROUP, LLC, DMTX, LLC, KELLER WILLIS SAN ANTONIO, INC., SAN ANTONIO LEGACY GROUP, LLC, FATHOM REALTY, LLC, GRACE REALTY GROUP LLC, SIDE, INC., CITIQUEST PROPERTIES, INC., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., JP PICCININI REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, TEAM BURNS, LLC, ABRE CAPITAL LLC, REALTY AUSTIN, LLC, ATX WIR LLC, THE MICHAEL GROUP, LLC, SQUARE MB, LLC, MARK ANTHONY DIMAS, GREENWOOD KING PROPERTIES II, INC., and TURNER MANGUM LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01013 (M.D. Fla., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in unlawful collaboration and anticompetitive practices which compel home sellers to provide an inflated fee to the broker representing the buyer of their properties, thus violating federal antitrust regulations. The creator of the conspiracy is the National Association of Realtors (NAR), a trade association for real estate brokers with over 1.5 million individual members. NAR conspired with affiliated associations in Texas and some of the largest real estate brokerages that worked in Texas during the Class Period, the suit says. NAR wields its regulatory authority to impose a rule known as the "Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule," which dictates that every property seller, when listing their home on an Multiple Listing Service (MLS) affiliated with a local NAR association, must make a sweeping, non-negotiable offer of compensation to buyer brokers. The Defendants, acting in concert with NAR, pressurize or incentivize their franchisees, brokers, and agents to become NAR members and adhere to its regulatory regime. Through this concerted effort, they ensure the implementation and enforcement of the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule. As a result, the Defendants' conspiracy has inflated and stabilized buyer broker commissions, resulting in higher total commissions paid by home sellers like the Plaintiffs and Class members, alleges the suit. QJ Team, LLC is a home builder in Texas. Five Points Holdings, LLC is a developer of mixed-use communities in Texas. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc. is a real estate non-profit corporation in Texas. Austin Board of Realtors is a non-profit corporation in Texas. San Antonio Board of Realtors, Inc. is a non-profit corporation in Texas. MetroTex Association of Realtors, Inc. is a non-profit corporation in Texas. Houston Association of Realtors, Inc. is a non-profit corporation in Texas. ABA Management, L.L.C. is a real estate service provider in Texas. PenFed Realty, LLC is a real estate company in Virginia. Ebby Halliday Real Estate, LLC is a real estate company in Texas. The Dave Perry-Miller Company is a real estate company in Texas. Keller Williams Realty, Inc. is a real estate franchise and brokerage firm in Texas. Heyl Group Holdings LLC is a real estate company in Texas. The Loken Group, Inc. is a real estate company in Texas. Hexagon Group, LLC is a real estate company in Texas. DMTX, LLC is a real estate company in Texas. Keller Willis San Antonio, Inc. is a real estate company with its principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio Legacy Group, LLC is a real estate company in Texas. Fathom Realty, LLC is a real estate company in Texas. Grace Realty Group LLC is a real estate company in Texas. Side, Inc. is a real estate company with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Citiquest Properties, Inc. is a real estate company with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. HomeServices of America, Inc. is a real estate company with its principal place of business in Edina, Minnesota. JP Piccinini Real Estate Services, LLC is a real estate firm in Texas. Team Burns, LLC d/b/a Monument Realty is a real estate service provider in Frisco, Texas. ABRE Capital LLC d/b/a Real Broker, LLC is a real estate company in Texas. Realty Austin, LLC is a real estate company in Texas. ATX WIR LLC is a real estate company in Texas. The Michael Group LLC is a real estate company in Texas. Square MB, LLC is a real estate company in Texas. Greenwood King Properties II, Inc. is a real estate company with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Turner Mangum LLC is a real estate company in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julie Pettit, Esq. David B. Urteago, Esq. THE PETTIT LAW FIRM 2101 Cedar Springs, Suite 1540 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 329-0151 Facsimile: (214) 329-4076 E-mail: jpettit@pettitfirm.com durteago@pettitfirm.com - and - Michael K. Hurst, Esq. Chris Schwegmann, Esq. Yaman Dasai, Esq. LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3800 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839 E-mail: mhurst@lynnllp.com cschwegmann@lynnllp.com ydesai@lynnllp.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Matthew P. McCahill, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com mmccahill@kaplanfox.com UNITED STATES: Sokolich Files Suit Over CBD Tolling Program ----------------------------------------------------------- MARK SOKOLICH, in his capacity as the mayor of Fort Lee and a resident of Fort Lee, and RICHARD GALLER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, SHAILEN BHATT, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and RICHARD J. MARQUIS, in his official capacity as Division Administrator of the New York Division of the Federal Highway Administration; THE MANHATTAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA), JOHN JANNO LIEBER, in his official capacity as Chair and CEO of the MTA, the TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY (TBTA), DANIEL DECRESCENZO, in his official capacity as President of the (TBTA), the TRAFFIC MOBILITY REVIEW BOARD (TMRB), CARL WEISBROD, in his capacity as Chair of the (TMRB), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-21728-BRM-LDW (D.N.J., Nov. 1, 2023) arises from the Federal Highway Authority's June 27, 2023 decision to approve the environmental review phase of New York's Central Business District Tolling Program, a congestion pricing scheme, which imposes an additional toll on drivers in Manhattan's Central Business District wherein the approval was imprudently given without the preparation of a complete environmental impact statement. According to the complaint, Defendant TBTA has the final say with respect to the design, development, building and running of the CBD Tolling Program. However, the Defendant TMRB, and the appointed chair and five-member panel, (also named as Defendants) are presently already working on recommending a tolling structure for the CBD Tolling Program, having met on July 19, 2023 and again on August 17, 2023, with additional meetings soon to be scheduled. On July 21, 2023, an action was commenced on behalf of the State of New Jersey against various federal entities relating to this premature approval captioned as State of New Jersey v. United States Department of Transportation, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03885-BRM-LDW. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations of that Complaint and agree with the remedies sought in that action. However, Plaintiffs seek additional remedies for injuries flowing from the CBD Tolling Program as well as relief on behalf of two separate classes. The Plaintiffs now bring this case on their own behalf and on behalf of two classes seeking both injunctive relief in the form of a judicially mandated review of the approval process used by the FHWA in its approval of the CBD program without adequately considering the consequences of the program on New Jersey, and the creation of a fund designed to remediate the acknowledged increase in traffic in Bergen County and the surrounding area, exacerbating noise and air pollution, the stress to New Jersey's mass transit infrastructure, and the deleterious health impact to New Jersey residents living in the vicinity of the George Washington Bridge and feeder roads. Plaintiff Sokolich is a citizen of New Jersey, the mayor of Fort Lee and a lifelong resident of this Borough in New Jersey which is along the Hudson River on the New Jersey side. Plaintiff Galler is a citizen of New Jersey and resident of Fort Lee. Mr. Galler suffers from Asthma which will be exacerbated by the increased traffic causing pollution to both Plaintiff and other residents in and around the surrounding area. United States Department of Transportation is the executive department of the federal government responsible for oversight of the transportation planning process.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Randee M. Matloff, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com VIMEO.COM INC: Tejon Sues Over Unwanted Disclosure of Video Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER TEJON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIMEO.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24347 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing habits of the visitors to its website, www.thezeusnetwork.com, without consent. The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided to it by Facebook. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on the Defendant's website and reported their viewing history to Facebook along with their unique Facebook Identification numbers. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit. Vimeo.com, Inc. is a video tape service provider, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E. las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com W RESTAURANT SUPPLIES: Faces Salazar FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- NHAIKELLY A. SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W RESTAURANT SUPPLIES CORP, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24334 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempted, full-time payroll processing employee from approximately August 01, 2022, to September 29, 2023. W Restaurant Supplies Corp. is a restaurant management company doing business as Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com WALMART INC: Alvarado Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products ------------------------------------------------------------- NAKIAH ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02592 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2023) alleges violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the labeling of the Defendant's sunscreen Product violated FDUTPA because the representations and omissions that it was "Reef Friendly" was unfair and deceptive to consumers, since it contained ingredients which are harmful to coral reefs. The labeling of the Product as "Reef Friendly" even though its active and inactive ingredients are harmful to coral reefs results in its "misbranding," because it misleads consumers, says the suit. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no less than approximately $4.88 for 5.5 oz (156 g), excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the suit alleges. Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler, games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party supplies, and automotive tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com WFG NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bautista Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- GEORGINA BAUTISTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; and WILLISTON FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-05837 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Bautista was employed by the Defendants as an escrow officer. WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers property and casualty insurance products, as well as provides underwriting of insurance such as guaranty of titles, real estate, and title insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Galdston, Esq. OMNUM LAW APC 4350 Executive Drive, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 539-9767 Email: bgaldston@omnumlaw.com - and - Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: pmeirels@shavitzlaw.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Has $826MM Net Reserves at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation has reported $826 million net asbestos reserves at September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The reserve reestimates in 2023 primarily related to new reported information and defense costs for asbestos and other run-off exposures and higher than expected environmental reported losses. "The reserve reestimates in 2022 primarily related to new reported information and defense costs for asbestos and higher than expected reported losses for environmental and other run-off exposures. "We believe that our reserves are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws, regulations, and assessments of other pertinent factors and characteristics of exposure (e.g., claim activity, potential liability, jurisdiction, products versus non-products exposure) presented by individual policyholders, assuming no change in the legal, legislative or economic environment. However, as we progress with the resolution of disputed claims in the courts and arbitrations and with negotiations and settlements, our reported losses may be more variable." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvkcdv6b ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jn99xf9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $5.3MM Net Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $5,300,000 and $9,700,000, net of insurance recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 38 years from September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by the settlement. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/ef8h35ca ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability for Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison), has reported $8 million accrued liability for asbestos suits at September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, that are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. At September 30, 2023, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years. These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/29fts8ke ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $103MM Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ Constellation Energy Corporation, at September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, has recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $103 million and $95 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of September 30, 2023, approximately $27 million of this amount related to 247 open claims presented to us, while the remaining $76 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3aaz4zuy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends 900 New Exposure Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., during the nine months ended September 30, 2023, has received 900 new claims that arises from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. During the nine months ended September 30, 2023, the Company paid $10 to settle asbestos claims and pay related legal and defense costs. The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims had no effect on the calculation of the Company???s accrual as the claims were filed in states, as described above, where the Company???s liability is limited by statute. With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims in Texas as described earlier. With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation products as the cause of injury. Given the Company's settlement experience with post-1964 claims, it does not believe that an adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a material impact on the Company with respect to such claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2xjnt3cx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Faces Pending PI Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in pending lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in our products make it unlikely that we will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9x9xwe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. These lawsuits principally allege direct or indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing premises. While the Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend these claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which may not be covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage. However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could materially impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/23yvwda5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reports $436MM Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $436 million at September 30, 2023, and $457 million at December 31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These reserves are based on Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2043 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2043 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. "The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables is $9 million and $12 million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas as of September 30, 2023, and December 31, 2022, respectively. The insurance receivable is evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses, current conditions and expected conditions around collectability. Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from credit agencies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ejw55tn ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Has 28,000 Claims Filed as of Oct. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Sempra's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part of the merger of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH), were defendants in personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of October 31, 2023, two lawsuits are pending. Additionally, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed, but not discharged, in advance of a December 2015 deadline to file a proof of claim in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. The costs to defend or resolve such claims and the amount of damages that may be incurred could have a material adverse effect on Sempra's results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4nh9s37j ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Faces 17,220 Pending PI Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Enviri Corporation, at September 30, 2023, had approximately 17,220 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the them, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Of those actions, approximately 16,600 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), approximately 120 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and approximately 500 were filed in courts located in other states. "The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25 million, regardless of the individual plaintiff???s alleged medical condition, and without identifying any specific Company product. "As of September 30, 2023, approximately 16,550 of the actions filed in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The remaining approximate 50 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n98sdu4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Receives 3,353 New PI Claims -------------------------------------------------------- ESAB Corporation, for the nine months ended September 29, 2023, has received 3,353 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has classified asbestos-related activity in Loss from discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Consolidated and Combined Condensed Statements of Operations. This is consistent with the Former Parent's classification on the basis that, pursuant to the purchase agreement from the Former Parent's Fluid Handling business divestiture, the Former Parent retained its asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. However, as the Former Parent did not retain an interest in the ongoing operations of the business subject to the contingencies, asbestos-related activity was classified as part of Loss from discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations of the Former Parent. The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does not believe the reasonably possible loss or a range of reasonably possible losses is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs that may be paid after the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related liabilities as well as costs incurred related to efforts to recover insurance from the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvtm52wv ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $218MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at September 30, 2023, had reported net asbestos loss reserves of $218 million, or 90.7%, of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant amount. "Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net reserves by the three-year average of annual paid losses. Hence, the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net three-year asbestos survival ratio was 6.8 years at September 30, 2023. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore may not be indicative of the timing of future payments." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/465eurff ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Records $2.5MM Insurance Receivables ------------------------------------------------------------- Graybar Electric Company, Inc., at September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, had $2.5 million and $41.5 million of insurance receivables recorded in other current assets and other non-current assets, respectively, and $2.5 million and $41.5 million recorded in other current liabilities and other non-current liabilities, respectively, related to its asbestos litigation defense and claims settlement reserve, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We have in place insurance coverage for litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with our asbestos claims. We estimate the value of probable insurance recoveries associated with our asbestos reserve based on management???s interpretations and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage. We estimate the future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs based on our historical liabilities and current and projected caseloads. "We are subject to various claims, disputes, and administrative and legal matters incidental to our past and current business activities. As a result, contingencies arise resulting from an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving an uncertainty as to the realization of a possible loss. "Estimated loss contingencies are accrued only if the loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. With respect to a particular loss contingency, it may be probable that a loss has occurred but the estimate of the loss is a wide range. If we deem an amount within the range to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount will be accrued. However, if no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. While we believe that none of these claims, disputes, administrative, and legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, these matters are uncertain and we cannot at this time determine whether the financial impact, if any, of these matters will be material to our results of operations in the period in which such matters are resolved or a better estimate becomes available." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/bde9mmr6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Defends Various PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Hess Corporation and its subsidiary HONX, Inc. have been named as defendants in various personal injury claims alleging exposure to asbestos and/or other alleged toxic substances while working at a former refinery (owned and operated by subsidiaries or related entities) located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "On April 28, 2022, HONX, Inc. initiated a Chapter 11 ?? 524G process in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to resolve these asbestos-related claims. In February 2023, Hess, HONX, Inc., the Unsecured Creditors' Committee, and counsel representing claimants, reached a mediated resolution of the matter, contingent upon final approvals of all parties and confirmation by the Bankruptcy Court. As of September 30, 2023, we have a provision of $116 million for the amounts expected to be funded to the ?? 524G trust established for the settlement of claims, based on the mediated resolution." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5y8nhjnb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The costs to resolve cases during the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, were not material individually or in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/53efj2z3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Reports $130.4MM Litigation Reserve ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll Rand Inc. has total litigation reserve of $130.4 million and $137.9 million as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising from the its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately $153.9 million and $154.2 million as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, which was included in "Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s38u5j3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manitex International, Inc., is named as a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, in certain instances, has been indemnified by a former owner of the product line involved, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these claims. As of September 30, 2023, the Company has a remaining obligation under these agreements to pay the plaintiffs $855 without interest in 9 annual installments of $95 on or before May 22 of each year. The Company has recorded a liability for the net present value of the liability. The difference between the net present value and the total payment will be charged to interest expense over the payment period. The Company has accrued $335 for settling a litigation matter involving a product liability case. In addition, the Company has recorded a charge of $369 for the estimated withdrawal liability for pension payments that it may owe under a collective bargaining agreement with the unions. These amounts are recorded in other expense in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4kj6snyj ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,924 New Exposure Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. (MLIC) is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts, wherein suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. For the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, MLIC received approximately 1,924 and 1,962 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/n3xucdr4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 20,670 Claims as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paramount Global is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of September 30, 2023, we had pending approximately 20,670 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 21,580 as of December 31, 2022. During the third quarter of 2023, we received approximately 690 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 770 claims. "Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. "We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs for the years 2022 and 2021 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately $57 million and $63 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/5erma88y ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Defends 128 Personal Injury Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in 128 cases asserting claims on behalf of 178 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3.0 million compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one count at $1.0 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/48xryvj8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Tech Records $21.7MM Asbestos Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- SPX Technologies, Inc., during the three and nine months ended October 1, 2022, has recorded charges for asbestos-related matters of $21.7 and $24.0, respectively, with $16.5 and $18.8, respectively, recorded to continuing operations and the remainder to discontinued operations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Of such charges, $21.7 (continuing operations - $16.5 and discontinued operations - $5.2) resulted from a ruling by a North Carolina trial court, during the third quarter of 2022, that certain excess insurance carriers associated with our asbestos product liability matters are not required to cover the costs of defending suits that are dismissed without an indemnity payment. "On November 1, 2022, we divested three wholly-owned subsidiaries that hold asbestos liabilities and certain assets, including related insurance assets, to Canvas Holdco LLC ("Canvas"), an entity formed by a joint venture of Global Risk Capital LLC and an affiliate of Premia Holdings Ltd. In connection with the divestiture (the "Asbestos Portfolio Sale"), the divested subsidiaries have agreed to indemnify us and our affiliates for their asbestos-related liabilities, which encompassed all of our consolidated asbestos-related liabilities and contingent liabilities immediately prior to the divestiture. These indemnification obligations are not subject to any cap or time limitation. As a result of this transaction, the Company divested all obligations with respect to pending and future asbestos claims relating to these matters. The board of managers of the divested subsidiaries each received a solvency opinion from an independent advisory firm that the divested subsidiaries were solvent after giving effect to the Asbestos Portfolio Sale." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4sjd9z92 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Trane Technologies plc's wholly-owned subsidiaries, and its former companies, have been named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/ab6beb8r ********* 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 ***