/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231130.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 30, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 240
Headlines
632 VANDERBILT: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Ochoa Suit Says
AARON'S LLC: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Marechal Suit Over SEC Disclosures
ALASKA DOC: Gary Files Suit in D. Alaska
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Antitrust Suit in California
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Mouth Scanner Prices
ASCENSION MICHIGAN: Cross Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Albright Suit
ATOMIC WALLET: Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Cyberattack
BACK IN TOWN: Jarquin Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
BANK OF THE WEST: Manzo Suit Removed to N.D. California
BREA CITRUS HEIGHTS: Blake Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BURBERRY LIMITED: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
CAPITAL GROUP: Pover Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA
CBIZ INC: Zahara Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Deaver Files Suit in D. South Carolina
CLEAR LINK INSURANCE: Costa Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
COMMUNITY MOBILE: Does Not Pay Timely Wages, Valovaya Says
CONAGRA BRANDS: Pelayo Suit Removed to N.D. California
CONNECTICUT WATER: Hoffnagle Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
DOLLAR ENERGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Tignor Suit Says
E.ON SE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal District Heating Charges
EQT CORP: Can Appeal in Class Suit Over Misleading Royalty Class
ESOTERIX INC: Lal Sues Over California Labor Code Breaches
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Young FCRA Suit
FCA US: Zuehlsdorf Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Blades Says
FMC CORP: Employer-Teamsters Sues Over Misleading Statements
HP INC: Hutchins Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
IFIT INC: Court Certifies Class in Douglass Suit
INMAR INC: Mr. Dee's Appeals Class Cert. Bid Ruling to 4th Cir.
LCS FINANCIAL: Faces Weiler Class Action Lawsuit in D. Colorado
LENOVO GROUP: Hermanson Sues Over Website's False Discount Ads
LOUISIANA: Mendoza Sues Over Violation of Civil Rights
MADE IN MEXICO: Appeals Default Judgment in Batista Suit to 2nd Cir
META PLATFORMS: Sued Over Breach of Public Trust
META PLATFORMS: Sued Over Public Nuisance and Negligence
MGM RESORTS: Fails to Secure Members' Personal Info, Rundell Says
MR. COOPER: Faces Pollard Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Fails to Disclose Quarterback's Injury
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Nelson Sues Over Erroneous Mortgage Charges
NEWREZ LLC: Faces Gaviria Class Action Suit in S.D. Florida
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Gerber Sues Over Data Breach's Late Notice
OREGON: Evangelist Fraud Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to D. Oregon
POSTMEDS INC: Reed Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Oguin Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
REAL FOOD: Fails to Pay Bartender's Minimum Wages, Covington Says
RESERVE AT LAVISTA: Faces Class Suit Over Apartment Fire
RH: Williams Sues Over Call Center Staff's Unpaid Wages
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Another Suit Over Unsafe Platform for Children
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Deits Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SCIENTIFIC CALIBRATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Henkel Claims
SIMI VALLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Crane et al. Say
SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA: Appeals Remand Ruling in Elkins Suit
TRIBIKE TRANSPORT: Faces Suit Over Athletes' Bikes Unpaid Bills
UNITED STATES: Al Otro Files Appeal in Asylum Process Denial Case
UNITED STATES: Fails to Exempt Parolees From $410 Filing Fee
UNITED STATES: Maloney Appeals Discrimination Case Ruling
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Deployment of Faulty AI Model
*********
632 VANDERBILT: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Ochoa Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAEL OCHOA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 632 VANDERBILT FOOD CORP., FRANK WIDDI, MOHMOUD WIDDI,
ABDELATIF ABDELJAWAL a/k/a ABDUL JAW AD, and EHAB ABDELJA WAL a/k/a
EHAB JAW AD, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08225 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6,
2023) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and postjudgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a non-exempt
produce stock person for both the Met Food Market and the
Supermarket from 2005 until November 2022. He asserts that
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay him lawfully
earned overtime compensation in direct contravention of the federal
and state laws.
632 Vanderbilt Food Corp. owns a supermarket doing business as "Met
Food Market," located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
AARON'S LLC: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jacob Atkinson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AARON'S, LLC DBA AARON'S SALES &
LEASE OWNERSHIP, LLC, a foreign for profit limited liability
corporation; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 23-2-19649-0 SEA was removed
from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 13, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01742.
The Plaintiff purports to allege three causes of action, on behalf
of himself individually and on behalf of a putative class of
individuals who applied to work for the Defendant in the State of
Washington: a cause of action pursuant to the Washington Equal Pay
and Opportunities Act ("RCW") for allegedly failing to disclose the
wage scale or salary range to be offered in Defendant's job
postings; a claim for injunctive relief to require the Defendant to
disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or
salary range to be offered; and a declaration that Defendant's
alleged practice of failing to disclose in each posting for each
job opening the wage scale or salary range is illegal.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 207-9281
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Helen M. McFarland, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700
Seattle, WA 98104-4041
Phone: (206) 946-4923
Fax: (206) 299-9974
Email: hmcfarland@seyfarth.com
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Marechal Suit Over SEC Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that on
March 17, 2023, the court issued a scheduling order, setting an
August 21, 2023, deadline for lead plaintiff to file a motion for
class certification, and setting a fact-discovery cutoff of
December 15, 2023 with regards to an April 19, 2021 purported
stockholder putative securities class action complaint captioned
"Marechal v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," (Case No. 21-cv-0762)
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the company and certain of its current executive officers.
On September 29, 2021, said court issued an order designating lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On December 10, 2021, lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges
that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that the materials
submitted in support of its supplemental new drug application
(sNDA) seeking approval of "pimavanserin" for the treatment of
hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related
psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that
the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on February 15, 2022.
On September 27, 2022, the court issued an order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the
amended complaint on October 19, 2022, and filed a motion for
reconsideration on October 25, 2022. On February 2, 2023, the Court
issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration.
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., based in San Diego, California, is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical
needs in central nervous system disorders and rare diseases.
ALASKA DOC: Gary Files Suit in D. Alaska
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alaska Department of
Corrections, et al. The case is styled as William Gary, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alaska Department
of Corrections; Jen Winkleman, Commissioner, in her official
capacity; Arnaldo Hernandez, Superintendent, in his official
capacity; Case No. 3:23-cv-00262-HRH (D. Alaska, Nov. 15, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
The Department of Corrections of the state of Alaska --
https://www.alaska.gov/ -- is an agency of the state government
responsible for corrections.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard Walton Anderson, III, Esq.
TRULUCK THOMASON LLC
3 Boyce Ave
Greenville, SC 29601
Phone: (864) 331-1751
Fax: (864) 332-9798
Email: howard@truluckthomason.com
- and -
Ruth Botstein, Esq.
ACLU OF ALASKA
1057 W. Fireweed Lane, #207
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 258-0044
Email: ruth.botstein@anchorageak.gov
- and -
Melody Layne Vidmar, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ALASKA
1057 Fireweed Lane, Suite 207
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 263-2006
Fax: (907) 263-2016
Email: mvidmar@acluak.org
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Antitrust Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that it is
facing an antitrust action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California filed on May 3, 2021 by an
individual named Misty Snow on behalf of herself and a putative
class of similarly situated individuals seeking monetary damages
and injunctive relief relating to our alleged market activities in
alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2021 adding new
plaintiffs and various state law claims. Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on October 21, 2021. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiffs
filed a third amended complaint. On October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs
filed a fourth amended complaint. On May 18, 2023, the court
granted plaintiffs leave to file a fifth amended complaint. The
amended complaints added allegations based on Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. A jury trial is scheduled to begin in this matter on
May 13, 2024 for issues related to said allegations. A jury trial
is scheduled to begin in this matter on January 21, 2025.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Mouth Scanner Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that it is
facing an antitrust suit filed on June 5, 2020 by a dental practice
named Simon and Simon, PC in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of itself and a putative
class of similarly situated practices seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief relating to its alleged market activities in
alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added VIP Dental Spas as a
plaintiff on August 14, 2020. A jury trial is scheduled to begin in
this matter on May 13, 2024.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
ASCENSION MICHIGAN: Cross Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Albright Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Shannon Cross, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated October 6, 2023 in the lawsuit styled KAREN
ALBRIGHT, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ASCENSION MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00638-JMB-PJG, in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan.
On July 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a four-count complaint
against the Defendants for alleged violations of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights
Act. The Plaintiffs later filed a First and Second Amended
Complaint. In each complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Ascension
and its various related entities unlawfully denied their religious
accommodation requests and retaliated against employees who sought
religious exemptions from Ascension's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.
The Plaintiffs claimed that they were suspended or forced to
resign.
On November 17, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff Albright filed a Proposed Stipulation
and Order holding Defendants' motion to dismiss in abeyance.
On March 7, 2023, District Judge Jane M. Beckering entered an Order
denying stipulation. The motion to dismiss was dismissed without
prejudice to refiling within 90 days.
On April 26, 2023, Judge Beckering granted joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, to authorize
notice, and for a fairness hearing.
On June 2, 2023, Dr. Paul Halczenko, an interested party, filed
motions to intervene, which the Court denied through an Order
entered by Judge Jane M. Beckering on June 13, 2023.
On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff Albright filed a motion for
settlement, attorney fees, and litigation expenses which the Court
granted on October 6, 2023 through an Order entered by Judge
Beckering.
The appellate case is captioned as Karen Albright, et al. v.
Ascension Michigan, et al., Case No. 23-1996, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Nov. 8, 2023.
On November 16, 2023, the Court of Appeals presented a letter
assigning new Case No. 23-2019 indicating that the appeal has been
docketed.[BN]
Objectors- Appellants SHANNON CROSS, et al., are represented by:
William Bock, III, Esq.
KROGER, GARDIS & REGAS
111 Monument Circle, Suite 900
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 692-9000
Plaintiffs-Appellees KAREN ALBRIGHT, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:
Noah Sklar Hurwitz, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW
340 Beakes Street, Suite 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 645-5263
Defendants-Appellees ASCENSION MICHIGAN, et al., are represented
by:
Elyse K. Culberson, Esq.
Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS
2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 936-1900
- and -
Patricia Anderson Pryor, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS
201 E. Fifth Street, 26th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 898-0050
ATOMIC WALLET: Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Cyberattack
----------------------------------------------------------
Brayden Lindrea of Cointelegraph reports that the Estonia-based
firm noted that only one plaintiff in the class action lawsuit is
actually based in Colorado, where the suit was filed.
The company behind Atomic Wallet has asked a United States court to
dismiss a class action suit seeking damages from a $100-million
hack, arguing the claims should've been filed in Estonia, where
it's based.
In a Nov. 16 dismissal motion in a Colorado District Court, the
Estonian firm argued it has "no U.S. ties," and its end-user
license agreement required all litigation against it to be filed in
its home country of Estonia.
Atomic pointed out that only one user in Colorado was allegedly
affected.
The firm also claimed the 5,500 allegedly affected Atomic users
agreed to its terms of service, which expressly disclaims liability
for losses due to theft and limits damages to $50 per user
Atomic said the plaintiff's negligence claims also lack legal merit
because a legal duty was never created in which they were to
maintain Atomic Wallet's security and protect against hacking.
"This Court has repeatedly rejected similar claims because Colorado
recognizes no such duty," it wrote.
Allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation were also struck down
by the Estonian-based wallet provider.
The plaintiffs launched the class action in August, two months
after a $100-million exploit on Atomic Wallet with up to 5,500
users affected -- with both North Korean and Ukrainian groups
blamed for the attack. [GN]
BACK IN TOWN: Jarquin Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Jarquin, and other similarly situated individuals v. Back In
Town, LLC, Amos M. Billie Jr., and Adriana Huggins, individually,
Case No. 1:23-cv-24322-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 10, 2023), is brought
to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, and retaliation under the laws of the United
States and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was not paid for
overtime hours. The Plaintiff was paid for all his working hours
but at his regular rate. In addition, while employed by Defendants,
Plaintiff was not paid his wages timely on payday. The Defendants
always paid Plaintiff late. Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
weekly, but he was not paid overtime hours, as required by law.
The Plaintiff did not clock in and out. However, Defendants knew
the number of hours that Plaintiff was working. Plaintiff worked
under the supervision of the owner of the business, Amos M. Billie
Jr. Therefore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at
the rate of time and one-half their regular rate for every hour
that they worked over 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff had duties as a landscaper and tiki hut builder at
various job sites in Dade County.
Back In Town is a lawn care and construction company specializing
in the construction of tiki huts, fences, decks, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
Florida Bar No.: 0024031
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
BANK OF THE WEST: Manzo Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Francisco Manzo, an individual, in his
representative capacity on behalf of the State of California and
fellow Aggrieved Employees v. BANK OF THE WEST, a California state
chartered bank; BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., a national banking
association; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-23-606104 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 13,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05848.
On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") asserts the same PAGA claim for civil penalties
as the original Complaint. In addition, the FAC asserts nine claims
on behalf Plaintiff and the putative class: failure to reimburse
business expense in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay minimum
wages in violation of Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4; failure
to pay overtime and double time wages in violation of Labor Code
and IWC Wage Order No. 4; failure to provide meal periods in
violation of Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4; failure to
provide or pay for rest breaks in violation of Labor Code and IWC
Wage Order No. 4; failure to pay all wages owed each pay period in
violation of Labor Code; failure to furnish timely and accurate
wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay all
wages due at separation in violation of Labor Code; and unfair
competition in violation of the California Business & Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew R Livingston, Esq.
Rachel Capler, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Phone: +1 415 773 5700
Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759
Email: alivingston@orrick.com
rcapler@orrick.com
BREA CITRUS HEIGHTS: Blake Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brea Citrus Heights
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jalisa Monique Blake, on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Brea Citrus Heights LLC, et
al., Case No. 23CV011755 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov.
15, 2023).
Brea Citrus Heights LLC is a California Foreign Limited-Liability
Company.[BN]
BURBERRY LIMITED: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jacob Atkinson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BURBERRY LIMITED, a foreign
for-profit corporation doing business as BURBERRY; and DOES 1
through 20, Case No. 23-2-19460-8 SEA was removed from the Superior
Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 13, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01736.
The Plaintiffs' putative class claims arise from allegations that
Defendant violated the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act,
("RCW") because "Plaintiff and more than 40 Class Members applied
to job openings with Defendant for positions located in Washington
state where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary
range, and/or a general description of the benefits and other
compensation to be offered."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ian Carleton Schaefer, Esq.
Katerina Mantell, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Phone: 212-653-8700
Facsimile: 212-653-8701
Email: ischaefer@sheppardmullin.com
kmantell@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Callie A. Castillo, Esq.
Dailey Koga, Esq.
LANE POWELL P.C.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-223-7000
Facsimile: 206-223-7107
CAPITAL GROUP: Pover Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY POVER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.; THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC., and its members;
and THE U.S. RETIREMENT BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF THE CAPITAL GROUP
COMPANIES, INC., and its members, Does 1–30, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-09657 (C.D. Cal., November 14, 2023) alleges breach of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Defendants are the fiduciaries of The Capital Group Companies,
Inc. Retirement Savings Plan. Accordingly, when constructing an
investment line-up for the Plan, Capital Group must independently
investigate and regularly monitor each of the Plan’s investment
options with an "eye single" to the interests of the Plan and its
participants and with the care and skill of a prudent investor. The
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to prudently
monitor and failing to remove five of the Plan's proprietary
investment options that suffer long-term underperformance. The
Defendants retained its own American Funds as Plan investment
options, which have taken in nearly a billion dollars in retirement
investments from Plan participants, says the suit.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Capital Group Companies, Inc. is
one of the world's largest investment management organizations with
offices in major cities around the globe. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Field, Esq.
Myounghee Choung, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
7911 Herschel Avenue, Suite 300
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (619) 577-4253
Facsimile: (619) 577-4250
E-mail: cfield@sanfordheisler.com
dchoung@sanfordheisler.com
- and -
Kevin Sharp, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 434-7000
Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com
- and -
Sharon Kim, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
17 State Street, Suite 3700
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 402-5650
Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
E-mail: sharonkim@sanfordheisler.com
- and -
Hampton Watson, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1950
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 834-7420
Facsimile: (410) 834-7425
E-mail: hwatson@sanfordheisler.com
CBIZ INC: Zahara Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Zahara, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CBIZ, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-12725 (D. Mass., Nov. 10, 2023), is brought against
Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated CBIZ clients' employees
sensitive information, including their full names, Social Security
numbers, 401(k) accounts information, and other sensitive
information ("personally identifiable information" or "PII").
Former and current employees at CBIZ's clients are required to
entrust Defendants with sensitive, non-public PII, without which
Defendants could not perform their regular business activities, in
order to obtain employment from CBIZ's clients. The Defendants
retain this information for at least many years and even after the
relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members,
Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals
to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access
and intrusion.
On or about May 31, 2023, CBIZ learned that Pension Benefit
Information, LLC's network, which PSC provided software services to
and CBIZ relied on for the sending and receiving of sensitive
information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. In response,
CBIZ "promptly launched an investigation, with the assistance of
cybersecurity professionals, into the nature and scope of the
MOVEit Transfer vulnerability." As a result of the investigation,
CBIZ concluded--on undisclosed date--that "an unauthorized party
exploited the vulnerability and downloaded files from CBIZ's MOVEit
Transfer server, including HBC files containing Plaintiff's and
Class Members' personal information."
The Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was
compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and their utter failure to protect consumers' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII 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.
The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures
and ensure those measures were followed by their IT vendors to
ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and
appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to
an unknown and unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class
Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their
information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to
injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees at
CBIZ's clients.
CBIZ is a corporation, with "more than 120 offices and 6,500 team
members," that provides "financial and benefits and insurance
services to organizations of all sizes, as well as individual
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (212) 594-5300
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Deaver Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Century Aluminum
Company, et al. The case is styled as Leslie Deaver, Robert B.
Deaver, Nicholas A. Marino, Jennifer Marino, Amber Brown, Barry
Bumford, Catherine B. Burns, Katie L. Higgs, Troy L. Higgs, Robert
Keene, Jennifer Poston, Melissa Morris, Travis Shippell, Myrna S.
Siebel, Daniel Howell, on behalf of themselves and a class of all
others similarly situated v. Century Aluminum Company, Century
Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-05766-RMG
(D.S.C., Nov. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Century Aluminum Company --
https://centuryaluminum.com/home/default.aspx -- is a US-based
producer of primary aluminium, with aluminum plants in Kentucky,
South Carolina and Iceland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frederick Elliotte Quinn, IV, Esq.
William Shafter Jackson, IV, Esq.
THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM LLP
103 Grandview Drive, Suite A
Summerville, SC 29483
Phone: (843) 871-6522
Fax: (843) 871-8565
Email: equinn@steinberglawfirm.com
wjackson@steinberglawfirm.com
- and -
Michael Joseph Jordan
STEINBERG LAW FIRM (CHAR)
PO Box 9
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 720-2800
Email: mjordan@steinberglawfirm.com
CLEAR LINK INSURANCE: Costa Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clear Link Insurance
Agency, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Daniel Costa,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Clear Link Insurance Agency, LLC, X-Telecom, Case No.
3:23-cv-05874-SAL (S.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Clearlink Insurance Agency -- https://clearlinkinsurance.com/ -- is
a one-stop-shop for Supplemental Health and Medicare
Insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dave Maxfield, Esq.
DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
PO Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
COMMUNITY MOBILE: Does Not Pay Timely Wages, Valovaya Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA VALOVAYA and JIHAN WILDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMUNITY MOBILE TESTING,
INC., and LABQ DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 618042/2023
(N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Nov. 6, 2023) is brought under New York
Labor Law seeking to recover untimely wage compensation and other
damages for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated non-exempt
hourly positions who work or have worked for the Defendants.
Plaintiffs Valovaya and Wilder were employed by LabQ as swabbers
from approximately one year ending on or about January 6, 2023 and
from January 2022 through May 2022, respectively.
LabQ provides medical diagnostics services in New York and New
Jersey and employs hundreds of people in New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and -
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
215-28 Hillside Ave.
Queens Village, NY 11427
Telephone: (718) 740-1000
CONAGRA BRANDS: Pelayo Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Israel Pelayo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Case No.
23CV402562 was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05833-AGT.
On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff commenced the State Court Action,
alleging causes of action on a representative basis for violations
of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and violations of the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff alleges that he and
members of a California putative class purchased certain Chef
Boyardee brand pasta products, and that the products' labeling
allegedly included false and misleading representations that they
contain no preservatives when the products contain citric
acid.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Angela Spivey, Esq.
Andrew Phillips, Esq.
Alan Pryor, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Phone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
Email: angela.spivey@alston.com
andrew.phillips@alston.com
alan.pryor@alston.com
- and -
Rachel E.K. Lowe, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
Phone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
Email: rachel.lowe@alston.com
CONNECTICUT WATER: Hoffnagle Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frances Hoffnagle, Lori Monroe, and Carla
Tracy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. THE CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANY, Case No. MDL 2873 was removed
from United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on Nov. 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01489.
The Hoffnagle Plaintiffs filed the instant action against
Connecticut Water Company (or "CWC"), alleging the same harms for
which CWC seeks relief in the action pending in the MDL for more
than two years. CWC hereby removes this case as involving an
embedded federal question. Because the Hoffnagle complaint and
CWC's complaint allege harms caused by the same contamination, CWC
will also submit a Notice of Potential Tag-Along with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"). In an identical action,
the JPML determined that a putative class action against a water
provider alleging contamination of drinking water and that water
provider's action alleging the same contamination "are sufficiently
intertwined that transfer is necessary to avoid duplicative
discovery and pretrial proceedings." The instant claim against CWC
alleges that the water CWC serves is contaminated with PFOA and
PFOS "at levels deemed dangerous to human health by the current
scientific understanding of PFAS chemicals as presented in
peer-reviewed studies and relied upon by the EPA."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
MOSKOW LAW GROUP, LLC
425 Kings Highway East
Fairfield, CT 06825
Phone: (475) 999-4177
Fax: (475) 999-4186
Email: neal@moskowlaw.com
Website: www.moskowlaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
Carla Burke Pickrel, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219-4281
Phone: (214) 521-3605
Fax: (214) 520-1181
- and -
Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq.
Christina Cossich, Esq.
COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR, LLC
8397 Highway 23, Suite 100
Belle Chasse, LA 70037
Phone: (504) 394-9000
Fax: (504) 394-9110
DOLLAR ENERGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Tignor Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY TIGNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR ENERGY FUND, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01916-WSS (W.D. Pa., Nov. 6, 2023) is a class action
against Dollar Energy for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) that it
collected from its customers, including Plaintiff, and maintained
as part of its regular business practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII -- and failed to even
encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. Had this
information been properly encrypted, the cybercriminals would have
made off with only unintelligible data. This unencrypted,
unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect
customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in
exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class
Members. This present and continuing risk to victims of the data
breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendant's inadequate data security practices.
Dollar Energy Fund, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization provides administration of financial assistance,
consumer education, payment counseling, and conservation programs
for gas, electric, water, and telephone utility companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
E.ON SE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal District Heating Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Martinez and Klaus Lauer of Reuters report that the
Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv) has filed class
action law suits against the suppliers E.ON (EONGn.DE) and
Hansewerk Natur over the prices they charged for district heating,
Funke Mediengruppe newspapers reported on November 19, 2023.
Neither company was immediately available for comment.
They have increased their prices by more than 100% in several areas
since 2021, and have in some cases almost quadrupled them, the
report said.
"E.ON and Hansewerk Natur lack the legal prerequisites for the
enormous and non-transparent price increases," vzbv board member
Ramona Pop was quoted as saying.
She said the district heating market in Germany is not
consumer-friendly, lacks competition, freedom of choice and has
little price transparency.
"With the two class actions, the vzbv is seeking direct refunds for
participating consumers," Pop said, adding customers who believe
they are affected can join the class actions free of charge by
registering with the Federal Office of Justice. [GN]
EQT CORP: Can Appeal in Class Suit Over Misleading Royalty Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Gough of Pittsburgh Business Times reports that EQT Corp.
will be allowed to challenge a class-action lawsuit that had been
filed four years ago in West Virginia.
EQT (NYSE: EQT) was sued in U.S. District Court by two West
Virginia landowners in 2019 who sought millions of dollars in
damages over what they said was misleading royalty statements from
the natural gas driller. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
said late on November 16, 2023 that EQT could appeal the class
certification in Glover et. al. vs EQT and opened a case in its
court on November 17, 2023.
A statement from EQT's lawyers, Michelman & Robinson, said that
it's rare for an appeals court to allow a reconsideration of a
decision in a class-action lawsuit.
EQT didn't respond to a request for comment on this week's action;
nor did two attorneys representing the Glovers. EQT's legal team
also includes Babst Calland.
William D. Glover and his wife, Linda K. Glover, and Richard A.
Glover and his wife, Christie L. Glover, originally filed the
lawsuit against EQT as a class action on July 19, 2019, in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in
Wheeling. The Glovers all live in New Martinsville, West Virginia,
and in 2014 had leased the oil and gas rights to 53 acres of land
in Proctor, West Virginia, to Stone Energy. Stone Energy's leases
were later acquired by EQT. The 2019 lawsuit alleged EQT breached
the terms of the leases "by failing to properly pay royalties for
the production and/or sale of NGLs and failing to timely tender
royalty payments due and owing for NGLs."
NGLs are natural gas liquids, which are mixed in with the natural
gas and can be separated and sold separately. The company countered
that it was paying for the NGLs when it paid for the British
Thermal Unit value of what comes out of the wells, according to the
West Virginia Record.
The lawsuit was granted class-action status earlier this year,
although two Oct. 16 decisions by U.S. District Court Judge John
Preston Bailey denied requests for punitive damages against EQT.
[GN]
ESOTERIX INC: Lal Sues Over California Labor Code Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------
NAYAN LAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ESOTERIX, INC., a Delaware corporation; LABAROTORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV27917 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 14, 2023) seeks to recover the
Private Attorneys General Act's civil penalties for the Defendants'
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff Lal as a non-exempt employee.
However, the Defendants failed to pay wages for all time worked,
including overtime wages, as a result of requiring Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees to wait in line for and undergo COVID-19
temperature checks prior to the start of their work shifts without
compensating them for this time. In addition, the Defendants also
failed to provide Plaintiff lawful rest periods and accurate wage
statements, the suit asserts.
Esoterix, a Delaware corporation, operates a healthcare company
that provides laboratory diagnostic testing within the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
Ivan P. Medina, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in Young FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Experian Information Solutions Inc. filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion dated October 23, 2023 entered
in the lawsuit entitled Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Meghan Young, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-03312-MAS-RLS, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Plaintiff initiated this action on June 15, 2023, against
Experian for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In her
complaint, Plaintiff claims that Experian (1) willfully and/or
negligently refused to assure the accuracy of credit reports as
prescribed under Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA; (2) failed to
prevent "inaccurate and damaging logical inconsistencies [from
appearing] on consumers' reports;" and (3) willfully and/or
negligently disregarded consumer's rights as set forth under
Section 168le of the FCRA.
On July 24, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration which Judge Michael A. Shipp denied without prejudice
on October 23.
The appellate case is captioned as Experian Information Solutions
Inc. v. Meghan Young, Case No. 23-2953, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 6, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC is
represented by:
Dorothy A. Kowal, Esq.
PRICE MEESE SHULMAN & D'ARMINIO
50 Tice Boulevard, Suite 380
Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677
Telephone: (201) 391-3737
Plaintiff-Appellee MEGHAN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
FCA US: Zuehlsdorf Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff STEVE ZUEHLSDORF filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order and Judgment dated October 31, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit styled as STEVE ZUEHLSDORF, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-01877-JGB-KK, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
The suit, filed on August 31, 2018, alleges the failure of the
Defendant to disclose material facts and safety concern to
consumers regarding vehicles equipped with a Jatco JF011E
Continuously Variable Transmission (Class Vehicles) designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or
serviced by FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC.
According to the complaint, the CVT is defective in that it causes
sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking when drivers attempt
to accelerate the class vehicle. In addition, when the driver tries
to accelerate, the CVT will cause the vehicle to lag and fail to
accelerate as intended by the driver. Further, the CVT is
inordinately prone to overheating, which causes the vehicle to
abruptly decelerate and lose power at highway speeds. Finally, the
CVT fails and requires replacement.
On February 7, 2022, Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an Order (1)
granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to strike
the expert testimony of Michael Stapleford; (2) granting
Defendant's motion to strike the expert testimony of Stephen B.
Boyles; (3) granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment; (4)
denying Plaintiff's ex parte application to supplement opposition
to Defendants motion for summary judgment; (5) granting Plaintiff's
motion to file opposition under seal; and (6) vacating the February
14, 2022 hearing.
On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff Steve Zuehlsdorf filed a motion for
class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Jesus G.
Bernal entered an Order on October 31, 2023:
(1) granting the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment;
(2) denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification; and
(3) vacating November 6, 2023 and December 4, 2023 Hearings.
Judge Bernal further entered Judgment on October 31, holding that
Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED;
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIED AS MOOT;
Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
the Clerk of the Court was DIRECTED to close the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Zuehlsdorf v. FCA US LLC, Case
No. 23-3372, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on November 8, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Mediation Questionnaire (Appellant) was due November 13,
2023;
-- Appeal Transcript Order (Appellant) was due November 20,
2023;
-- Appeal Transcript (Appellant) is due on December 20, 2023;
-- Appeal Opening Brief (Appellant) is due on January 29, 2024;
-- Appeal Answering Brief (Appellee) is due on February 28,
2024;
-- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of
the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing
schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant STEVE ZUEHLSDORF, individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:
Ryan Wu, Esq.
Tyler C. Anderson, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW, APC
1875 Century Park, E Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Defendant-Appellee FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is represented by:
Kathy Wisniewski, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
One U.S. Bank Plaza
505 N 7th Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Blades Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY BLADES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION SERVICE CORPORATION, HOMELAND
BANCSHARES, INC., PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, and IPSWITCH,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01471-EEF-KDM (W.D. La., Oct. 17, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and approximately 1,359,260 other
similarly situated individuals' personally identifiable
information.
During the Data Breach, and due to the Defendants' data security
and privacy shortcomings, unauthorized persons were able to gain
access to files containing the PII of FISC's and Homeland Bank's
customers by exploiting a vulnerability in the MOVEit platform. The
compromised information includes names, addresses, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and other
government issued identification numbers, financial account
information, telephone numbers, and credit and/or debit card
numbers, the suit says.
As a direct result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered
injury and damages including imminent risk of identity theft; the
wrongful disclosure and loss of confidentiality of his highly
sensitive PII; deprivation of the value of his PII; and overpayment
for services that did not include adequate data security. Thus, the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members,
asserts claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment, and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable
relief, and all other relief authorized by law.
Mr. Jerry Blades is a citizen of the State of Louisiana. He was
required to provide his PII to Homeland Bank in connection with
obtaining financial services.
Financial offers numerous data processing services which can be
personalized to meet the needs of each individual member bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Marc Vezina, Esq.
Kelli M. Khalaf, Esq.
VEZINA AND GATTUSO, LLC
401 Weyer Street
Gretna, LA 70054
Telephone: (504) 368-5223
E-mail: jmv@vezinalaw.com
kkhalaf@vezinagattuso.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
FMC CORP: Employer-Teamsters Sues Over Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYER-TEAMSTERS LOCAL NOS. 175 & 505 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
FMC CORPORATION, MARK A. DOUGLAS, and ANDREW D. SANDIFER,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04487 (E.D. Pa., November 14, 2023)
seeks to pursue remedies against FMC and certain of the Company's
senior executives under Sections 10-b and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of FMC common stock between November 1, 2022 and October
30, 2023. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants made positive
statements about FMC's diamides business, lack of meaningful
competition, and growth prospects. These statements caused the
price of FMC common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels.
However, on September 7, 2023, an investment firm issued a report
on FMC which revealed--for the first time--that FMC had lost key
patent disputes in Asia and Brazil and that FMC faced substantially
more generic competition than previously represented by the
Company. In response to the disclosure of facts in the investment
report, the price of FMC common stock continued to decline, says
the suit.
Headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, FMC is an international
manufacturer of agricultural products consisting of herbicides,
insecticides and miticides, fungicides, harvest aids, and other
crop chemicals used for seed corn, potatoes, sorghum, sweet corn,
cotton, tobacco, sunflowers, grapes, and other related products.
Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "FMC." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq.
SAXTON & STUMP
280 Granite Run Drive, Suite 300
Lancaster, PA 17601
Telephone: (717) 556-1000
Facsimile: (717) 441-3810
E-mail: lfs@saxtonstump.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Del Giudice, Esq.
CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON
1219 Virginia Street, East, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 343-4440
Facsimile: (304) 343-4464
HP INC: Hutchins Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HUTCHINS, as a representative of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the HP Inc. 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. HP
INC.; HP INC. PLAN COMMITTEE; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv 05875 (N.D. Cal., November 14, 2023)
asserts claims against the Defendants for breach of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act's fiduciary duties and for
violations of the ERISA's anti-inurement provision.
Plaintiff Hutchins alleges the Defendants have continually breached
this duty of loyalty with respect to their control and management
of the Plan's assets throughout the class period by choosing to
utilize forfeited funds in the Plan for the benefit of the Company
rather than solely in the interest of the participants and
beneficiaries. By electing to use forfeited funds in the Plan as a
substitute for employer matching contributions to the Plan, and
thereby saving the Company millions of dollars in contribution
expenses, Defendants caused the Plan to engage in transactions that
constituted a direct or indirect exchange of existing Plan assets
for future employer contributions and/or a use of Plan assets by or
for the benefit of a party in interest. As a result of these
prohibited transactions, Defendants caused the Plan to suffer
losses in the amount of the Plan assets that were substituted for
future employer contributions and the lost investment returns on
those assets, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Palo Alto, CA, HP is an information technology
company that develops personal computers, printers and related
supplies, as well as 3D printing solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (626) 808-4357
E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
IFIT INC: Court Certifies Class in Douglass Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. iFIT INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-00917-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan
entered an order granting plaintiff's unopposed motion to certify
class for settlement purposes and for preliminary approval of class
action settlement:
1. The order incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Agreement, and all terms defined therein shall have the same
meaning in this order as set forth in the Agreement.
2. The Plaintiff's Motion is granted. It appears to this Court
on a
preliminary basis that the Agreement satisfies the elements
of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
3. The proposed Settlement Class is preliminarily certified
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of
settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as:
"All Blind or Visually Disabled persons who have accessed,
attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to
access,
or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from
accessing iFIT’s Digital Properties, which include
https://www.nordictrack.com/, https://www.proform.com/,
https://freemotionfitness.com/, and https://www.ifit.com/]
from
the United States.
4. The Court finds that Plaintiff Blair Douglass will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. As
a
result, the Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as
representative of the Settlement Class.
5. The Court finds that attorneys Kevin Tucker, Kevin
Abramowicz,
Chandler Steiger, and Stephanie Moore of East End Trial Group
LLC are experienced and competent counsel who will continue
to
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement
Class.
As a result, the Court appoints and designates attorneys
Tucker,
Abramowicz, Steiger, and Moore as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.
6. The Court finds that the Long-Form Notice attached to the
Agreement as Exhibit 1 and the notice plan attached to the
pending motion as Exhibit 2 meet due process requirements,
the
requirements of Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e) of the Federal Rules
of
Civil Procedure, and ensure notice is well calculated to
reach
representative class members. The notice and notice plan are
approved.
7. Within 21 days of this Order, December 4, 2023, iFIT shall,
at
its expense:
(a) Add dates to the placeholders in the Long-Form Notice
accompanying the Agreement as Exhibit 1.
(b) Ensure the Settlement Website is live and may be accessed
over the internet.
8. A final approval hearing shall be held before this Court on
April 11, 2024, at 9:00 AM ET in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, located
atJoseph
F. Weis Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Courtroom 8A,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, to determine whether the Agreement
shall
be granted final approval, and to address any related
matters.
IFIT operates as a health and fitness technology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40NDT43 at no extra
charge.[CC]
INMAR INC: Mr. Dee's Appeals Class Cert. Bid Ruling to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MR. DEE'S, INC., appeals from the District Court's Memorandum
Opinion and Order entered August 23, 2023 in the lawsuit entitled
Mr. Dee's Inc., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Inmar, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00141-WO-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.
The case concerns an alleged conspiracy between competing coupon
processors to allocate markets and customers and fix shipping fees
in violation of the Sherman Act.
The action was initially brought in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin in 2008. In 2019, the case was transferred to the Middle
District of North Carolina. The Plaintiffs amended their Complaint
three times. The Defendants filed an Answer to the Third Amended
Complaint.
On Aug. 2, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, and accompanying brief. The Plaintiffs responded, and the
Defendants replied.
On May 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted in part and denied in part through an Order
entered by Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. The Court held that
Plaintiffs have failed to proffer a manufacturer class that
complies with the requirements of Rule 23. The Limited Payer
Classes are not ascertainable because their scope is not defined by
the Defendants' allegedly conspiratorial activities. The All Payer
Manufacturer Class fails the predominance requirement because
one-third of the class is uninjured. However, the All Payer
Retailer Class may be certified because it only contains a de
minimis number of uninjured members and satisfies the other
requirements of Rule 23. Thus, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted as
to the All Payer Retail Class and as to the Plaintiffs' request to
appoint class counsel. The Plaintiffs' motion was otherwise
denied.
The Plaintiff previously filed an appeal captioned as Mr. Dee's
Inc. v. Inmar, Inc., Case No. 23-249, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, on September 6, 2023.
That appellate case has been transferred to the regular docket and
assigned new Case No. 23-2165, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on November 6, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners MR. DEE'S INC., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kearns Davis, Esq.
Matthew Brady Tynan, Esq.
BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP
P.O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
Telephone: (336) 271-3174
(336) 271-3171
- and -
Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
Daniel Low, Esq.
KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
1918 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 471-1995
Defendants-Respondents INMAR, INC., et al., are represented by:
Samuel B. Hartzell, Esq.
Pressly McAuley Millen, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
555 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 755-2135
(919) 755-2112
LCS FINANCIAL: Faces Weiler Class Action Lawsuit in D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LCS Financial
Services. The case is captioned as Weiler v. LCS Financial
Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-02713-CNS-MEH (D. Colo., Oct. 17,
2023).
The suit alleges torts related violations. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney.
LCS operates as a financial collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
LENOVO GROUP: Hermanson Sues Over Website's False Discount Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK HERMANSON, CHUN-YU CHEN, and SHUANG LIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LENOVO GROUP
LIMITED and LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-05890 (N.D. Cal., November 14, 2023) challenges Lenovo's
practice of advertising false and misleading price reductions on
its website, and Lenovo's willful violation of a court-approved
class action settlement agreement whereby it agreed to stop this
practice.
According to the complaint, Defendant Lenovo advertises false
discounts on its website by displaying an artificially inflated
reference price near the sale price, and then telling consumers
they are saving money based on the difference between the reference
price and the sale price. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek public
injunctive relief in the form of a court order prohibiting Lenovo
from continuing to falsely advertise price reductions on its
website and seek compensation for themselves and all others
similarly situated who have been duped by any form of Lenovo's
false price reductions.
With its global headquarters in Beijing, China, Lenovo Group
Limited is a multinational technology company that manufactures
laptop and desktop computers. The company maintains and operational
headquarters in Morrisville, NC. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel A. Rozenblatt, Esq.
Natasha Dandavati, Esq.
Seth W. Wiener, Esq.
EDGE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
1341 La Playa Street 20
San Francisco, CA 94122
Telephone: (415) 515-4809
E-mail: daniel.rozenblatt@edge.law
natasha.dandavati@edge.law
seth.wiener@edge.law
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy,
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
LOUISIANA: Mendoza Sues Over Violation of Civil Rights
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LeBlanc et al. The
case is captioned as Mendoza et al v. LeBlanc et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-01499-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La., Oct. 16, 2023).
The suit alleges civil rights related violations.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian A. Jackson.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Scott Vogel, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT
OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
2201 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (504) 569-5650
E-mail: matt@nipnlg.org
- and -
Francisca D. Fajana, Esq.
Rafaela Uribe, Esq.
LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
475 Riverside Drive, Ste 1901
New York, NY 10115
Telephone: (212) 219-2260
E-mail: ffajana@latinojustice.org
ruribe@latinojustice.org
MADE IN MEXICO: Appeals Default Judgment in Batista Suit to 2nd Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Made in Mexico Uptown Corp., et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated October 6, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
styled CYNTHIA BATISTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADE IN MEXICO UPTOWN CORP.; MADE
IN MEXICO HARLEM CORP.; HENRY BOURDIER; and ISMAEL GARCIA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08606, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The class suit was filed by the Plaintiff on October 20, 2021
alleging the failure of the Defendant to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation and provide accurate wage statements under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On December 13, 2021, Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an Order
directing the Plaintiff to notify the Court whether it intends to
move for default judgment, or if it has received any communication
from Defendants or their counsel regarding a response to the
complaint. If Plaintiff fails by December 29, 2021, to either (1)
file a letter concerning the status of the case, or (2) move for
default judgment against Defendants, the action may be dismissed
for failure to prosecute.
On May 10, 2022, Judge Oetken entered an Order which stated that
the Clerk of Court issued certificates of defaults in the case on
February 4, 2022. However, Plaintiff has not yet filed a motion for
default judgment. If Plaintiff intends to move for default
judgment, she must file a motion on or before June 10, 2022.
On January 17, 2023, the Court was notified that the Plaintiff
filed a motion for default judgment in the action on May 20, 2022.
On February 22, 2023, Judge Oetken signed an order granting
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. Plaintiff Batista will be
awarded judgment against Defendants Made in Mexico Uptown Corp.,
Made in Mexico Harlem Corp., Henry Bourdier, and Ismael Garcia in
the amount of: $325,558.75, plus prejudgment interest at 9% per
year from August 26, 2018 (the midpoint of Plaintiff's employment
with Defendants), to the date of judgment; plus $3,679 in costs and
reasonable attorney's fees. The next day, the Clerk of the Court
entered Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants
as stated in the Court's Order.
The Court held a telephone conference on October 6, 2023, during
which the parties were heard on Defendant Garcia's request to
vacate the default judgment entered in this case. For the reasons
stated by the Court on the record, that motion was denied.
The appellate case is captioned as Batista v. Made in Mexico Uptown
Corp., Case No. 23-7720, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on November 9, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants MADE IN MEXICO UPTOWN CORP, et al., are
represented by:
Martin E. Restituyo, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN E. RESTITUYO, P.C.
1325 Avenue of The Americas, 28th Floor
New York, NY
Plaintiff-Appellee CYNTHIA BATISTA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
META PLATFORMS: Sued Over Breach of Public Trust
------------------------------------------------
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, and others similarly
situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC.; FACEBOOK HOLDINGS, LLC; FACEBOOK
OPERATIONS, LLC; INSTAGRAM, LLC; SICULUS, INC.; META PAYMENTS,
INC.; SNAP INC.; TIKTOK, INC.; BYTEDANCE, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; and
YOUTUBE LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-05740 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2023), is
brought claiming for public nuisance and negligence arising from
Defendants' unreasonably dangerous social media products and their
failure to warn of such dangers and arising from an egregious
breach of the public trust by Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc.
(hereinafter, "Meta Platforms"), Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook
Operations, LLC, Instagram, LLC (hereinafter, "Instagram")
(collectively--"Meta"), together with Snap Inc. (hereinafter,
"Snap"), TikTok, Inc. (hereinafter, "TikTok"), and ByteDance, Inc.
(hereinafter, "ByteDance") (hereinafter, collectively, "Non-Meta,"
and, together with "Meta," "Defendants").
In the past decade, youth in America have engaged with Defendants'
products at an exponential rate. This increase in youth using
social media is the direct result of Defendants' calculated efforts
to encourage and addict adolescents to endlessly use their
products--Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. The
Defendants do not charge their users for these products, but
instead receive money from advertisers who pay a premium to target
advertisements to specific categories of people as studied and
sorted by Defendants' algorithms. Thus, Defendants generate revenue
based upon the total time users spend on the application, which
directly correlates with the number of advertisements that can be
shown to each user.
The defects in Defendants' products vary somewhat, but all
Defendants' products have inadequate age verification measures;
insufficient parental controls; algorithmically-generated, endless
feeds to keep users scrolling in an induced "flow state;"
"intermittent variable rewards" that manipulate dopamine delivery;
and mechanisms to reward extreme usage while producing harmful
social comparison. These defects, along with others discussed
throughout this complaint, cause Defendants' products to be
harmfully addictive, which in turn causes additional related
injuries.
Excessive screen time is especially harmful to adolescents' mental
health, sleep patterns, and emotional well-being. Yet, Defendants'
products lack any warnings (to users in general, minor users, or
their parents) that foreseeable product use can cause injury to
users' mental and physical health, rendering the products
unreasonably dangerous. Defendants' products contain designs
intended to circumvent parental oversight.
The Defendants know that minors are much more vulnerable to serious
psychological harm through social media use than adults.
Nevertheless, Defendants knowingly seek to grow the use of their
products by minors through designs, algorithms, and policies that
promote addiction, compulsive use, and other severe mental harm.
Rather than making meaningful changes to safeguard the health and
safety of its users, Defendants have consistently chosen to
prioritize profit over safety by continuing to implement product
designs that increase the frequency and duration of users'
engagement, resulting in the pernicious harms.
As a result, Plaintiff, as part of its mission as an educational
institution that shapes the minds of youth, provides mental health
services to its students. Plaintiff trains its teachers and staff
to screen students for mental health symptoms and provide or refer
them to services, such as those offered by school-based health
clinics operated in partnership with behavioral health agencies.
Plaintiff continues to hire mental health professionals to keep up
with the ever-growing need of its students, but there is no end in
sight. Plaintiff needs much more, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff The School Board of Polk County, Florida, ("Polk
County Schools") governs Polk County Public Schools.
The Defendants own and operate some of the largest social media
companies in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Austin Brane, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Email: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
abrane@wcllp.com
META PLATFORMS: Sued Over Public Nuisance and Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------
Washoe County School District, and others similarly situated v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.; FACEBOOK HOLDINGS, LLC; FACEBOOK OPERATIONS,
LLC; INSTAGRAM, LLC; SICULUS, INC.; META PAYMENTS, INC.; SNAP INC.;
TIKTOK, INC.; BYTEDANCE, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; and YOUTUBE LLC, Case
No. 4:23-cv-05729 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2023), is brought claiming
for public nuisance and negligence arising from Defendants'
unreasonably dangerous social media products and their failure to
warn of such dangers and arising from an egregious breach of the
public trust by Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. (hereinafter, "Meta
Platforms"), Facebook Holdings, LLC, Facebook Operations, LLC,
Instagram, LLC (hereinafter, "Instagram") (collectively--"Meta"),
together with Snap Inc. (hereinafter, "Snap"), TikTok, Inc.
(hereinafter, "TikTok"), and ByteDance, Inc. (hereinafter,
"ByteDance") (hereinafter, collectively, "Non-Meta," and, together
with "Meta," "Defendants").
In the past decade, youth in America have engaged with Defendants'
products at an exponential rate. This increase in youth using
social media is the direct result of Defendants' calculated efforts
to encourage and addict adolescents to endlessly use their
products--Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. The
Defendants do not charge their users for these products, but
instead receive money from advertisers who pay a premium to target
advertisements to specific categories of people as studied and
sorted by Defendants' algorithms. Thus, Defendants generate revenue
based upon the total time users spend on the application, which
directly correlates with the number of advertisements that can be
shown to each user.
The defects in Defendants' products vary somewhat, but all
Defendants' products have inadequate age verification measures;
insufficient parental controls; algorithmically-generated, endless
feeds to keep users scrolling in an induced "flow state;"
"intermittent variable rewards" that manipulate dopamine delivery;
and mechanisms to reward extreme usage while producing harmful
social comparison. These defects, along with others discussed
throughout this complaint, cause Defendants' products to be
harmfully addictive, which in turn causes additional related
injuries.
Excessive screen time is especially harmful to adolescents' mental
health, sleep patterns, and emotional well-being. Yet, Defendants'
products lack any warnings (to users in general, minor users, or
their parents) that foreseeable product use can cause injury to
users' mental and physical health, rendering the products
unreasonably dangerous. Defendants' products contain designs
intended to circumvent parental oversight.
The Defendants know that minors are much more vulnerable to serious
psychological harm through social media use than adults.
Nevertheless, Defendants knowingly seek to grow the use of their
products by minors through designs, algorithms, and policies that
promote addiction, compulsive use, and other severe mental harm.
Rather than making meaningful changes to safeguard the health and
safety of its users, Defendants have consistently chosen to
prioritize profit over safety by continuing to implement product
designs that increase the frequency and duration of users'
engagement, resulting in the pernicious harms.
As a result, Plaintiff, as part of its mission as an educational
institution that shapes the minds of youth, provides mental health
services to its students. Plaintiff trains its teachers and staff
to screen students for mental health symptoms and provide or refer
them to services, such as those offered by school-based health
clinics operated in partnership with behavioral health agencies.
Plaintiff continues to hire mental health professionals to keep up
with the ever-growing need of its students, but there is no end in
sight. Plaintiff needs much more, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Washoe County School District ("Washoe Schools") is a
public school district in Northwestern Nevada serving approximately
70,000 students.
The Defendants own and operate some of the largest social media
companies in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Austin Brane, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Email: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
abrane@wcllp.com
MGM RESORTS: Fails to Secure Members' Personal Info, Rundell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD G. RUNDELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, Case No.
2:23-cv-01698-CDS-DJA (D. Nev., Oct. 18, 2023) is a class action
arising out of a recent cyberattack and data breach, which resulted
in unauthorized actors viewing and accessing the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of a significant number of
individuals who were members of MGM's loyalty program.
On Sept. 29, 2023, MGM determined that an unauthorized third party
obtained personal information of some of its customers on September
11, 2023. MGM reported that the affected information included
names, contact information (such as phone numbers, email addresses,
and postal addresses), genders, dates of birth, and driver's
license numbers, and for a limited number of customers, social
security numbers and/or passport numbers. MGM's carelessness,
negligence, and lack of oversight and supervision caused its
customers to lose all sense of privacy, says the suit.
The Plaintiff's and the Class members' rights were disregarded by
MGM's negligent or reckless failure to take adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure its data systems were secure and the PII
entrusted to it would not be stolen. MGM also failed to disclose
the material fact that it did not have adequate information
security controls to safeguard PII, failed to take foreseeable
steps to prevent the Data Breach, and failed to monitor and timely
detect the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach,
Plaintiff’s and Class members' PII has been and will continue to
be exposed to criminals for misuse, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the
Class, seeking remedies including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, injunctive relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems
proper.
Plaintiff Rundell is a resident of the state of South Dakota. The
Plaintiff has been an MGM Rewards member since before 2018 and
entrusted MGM with his personal information.
MGM is a gaming and hospitality company that owns and operates 31
hotel and gaming destinations globally, including 12 hotels on the
Las Vegas Strip.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (725) 235-9750
E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
F. Peter Silva, II
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
psilva@tzlegal.com
MR. COOPER: Faces Pollard Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAY POLLARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-02468-X (N.D. Tex., Nov. 6, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information (PII) stored within Defendant's
information network.
According to the complaint, while Defendant claims to have
discovered the breach as early as October 31 of some unspecified
year in a notice sent to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not
inform victims of the data breach until November 2, 2023.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to
prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow
applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and
procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party, says the suit.
Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. provides servicing, origination and
transaction-based services related to single family residences
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendal, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Fails to Disclose Quarterback's Injury
---------------------------------------------------------
Marca reports that Barstool Sports president Dave Portnoy shared a
video via Instagram on November 18, 2023 announcing he and his
father's class-action lawsuit against the Cincinnati Bengals for
failing to disclose an injury to quarterback Joe Burrow ahead of
their November 16, 2023 Night Football loss against the Baltimore
Ravens.
Portnoy, 46, could be joking, but his father, Michael J. Portnoy,
is a real lawyer, so there's also a chance he really goes through
with the class action on behalf of sports gamblers.
"If you or somebody you know has been harmed gambling on the NFL by
[the NFL commissioner] and specifically the Bengals on November 16,
2023 [Night] Football you may be entitled to damages," Portnoy
wrote on IG. "Please contact the Law Firm of '@TheCousinMike.' Let
us work for you. No settlement. No fees."
Portnoy, who explained why he's suing, also provided what seemed
like a fake phone number for anyone interested in joining the
lawsuit to contact.
Joe Burrow out for the season
Burrow, 26, will miss the rest of the season with a wrist injury.
He was seen wearing a brace on his right hand while stepping off
the bus ahead of TNF in a photo that surfaced after the loss.
Like Portnoy explained, wearing a wrist brace means Burrow is
unhealthy, but the Bengals still did not add him to the injury
report.
In fact, the NFL is investigating the Bengals for not disclosing
Burrow's injury, exactly why Portnoy is supposedly suing the
franchise. [GN]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Nelson Sues Over Erroneous Mortgage Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BETSY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a MR COOPER,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-03339 (W.D. Mo., Nov. 6, 2023) is a
class action seeking redress for collection practices that violate
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Missouri law.
On October 31, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a note and mortgage
with Flat Branch Mortgage, Inc. in the amount of $157,509.00 (the
"Mortgage Loan") to purchase a real estate property located in
Strafford, Missouri. On September 2, 2021, servicing of the
mortgage loan was transferred to Nationstar as a subservicer for
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC.
On April 13, 2022, after Plaintiff engaged counsel to contact
Nationstar on her behalf, Nationstar sent Plaintiff's counsel a
letter finally acknowledging that it improperly doubled the amount
of missed payments and misstated the payoff amount of the Mortgage
Loan. Despite acknowledging its errors on April 13, 2022,
Nationstar failed to tender payment to Plaintiff until October 31,
2022; Nationstar failed to compensate Plaintiff for the loss of any
interest which accrued on the misappropriated funds.
The Plaintiff had to spend time and money investigating
Nationstar's actions, including Nationstar's unreasonably long
response time after being notified about the errors at issue. In
failing to timely reimburse Plaintiff, Nationstar intentionally
harmed her without just cause and is therefore liable for punitive
damages, says the suit.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is one of the largest mortgage servicers
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Burgess, Esq.
BURGESS LAW FIRM PC
4505 Madison Ave, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 471-1700
Facsimile: (816) 471-1701
E-mail: mitch@burgesslawkc.com
- and -
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
NEWREZ LLC: Faces Gaviria Class Action Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newrez LLC. The case
is captioned as Gaviria v. Newrez LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-61995-RAR
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 18, 2023).
The suit alleges Real Property related violations. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II.
Newrez is a nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.[BN]
Plaintiff Gloria M. Gaviria, individually and On behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Scott David Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
6810 North State Road 7,
33073 Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-7062
E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Celia Chapman Falzone, Esq.
AKERMAN SENTERFITT EIDSON
50 N Laura Street, Suite 2500
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 598-8644
E-mail: celia.falzone@akerman.com
- and -
Marc Jonathan Gottlieb, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
201 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 463-2700
E-mail: marc.gottlieb@akerman.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Gerber Sues Over Data Breach's Late Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
LAURIE GAY GERBER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and PERRY JOHNSON &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08467-SIL (E.D.N.Y.,
November 14, 2023) seeks actual damages, punitive damages,
restitution, statutory damages, injunctive relief, and a
declaratory judgment for Defendants' negligence, breach of express
and implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
On November 3, 2023, it was disclosed that the personally
identifiable information (PII) of nearly four million current or
former Northwell patients, including the PII of Plaintiff and the
Class, had been compromised in connection with a cyberattack that
was discovered on May 2, 2023.
According to the Notice of Data Breach received from Perry Johnson
& Associates, Inc. (PJ&A) by Plaintiff Gerber, the data breach
occurred when Northwell's third-party medical technology services
vendor for transcription and dictations services -- PJ&A -- had its
computer systems compromised. However, the conduct of PJ&A with
respect to the data breach is egregious: (1) PJ&A's systems were
first compromised on March 27, 2023 but PJ&A was completely unaware
of the breach until over six weeks later (on May 2, 2023); (2) PJ&A
became cognizant of the data breach on May 2, 2023 but failed to
notify Northwell until July 21, 2023; (3) PJ&A failed to state in
its Notice how the data breach specifically occurred, the remedial
measures, if any, taken to protect the PII still in its possession,
and how PJ&A intends to prevent this from happening again, says the
suit.
Northwell Health, Inc. is a New York not-for-profit corporation
with its principal place of business located at 2000 Marcus Avenue,
New Hyde Park, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Israel David, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
17 State Street, Suite 4010
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 739-0622
Facsimile: (212) 739-0628
Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
blake.yagman@davidllc.com
OREGON: Evangelist Fraud Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to D. Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Oregon et
al. The case captioned as Evangelist et al v. State of Oregon et
al., Case No. 23CV34800, was removed from Marion County Circuit
Court to the United States District Court District of Oregon on
Oct. 18, 2023.
The District of Oregon Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:23-cv-01532-MC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Michael J. McShane.
The suit alleges fraud related violations.
Oregon is a part of the Western United States, with the Columbia
River delineating much of Oregon's northern boundary with
Washington, while the Snake River delineates much of its eastern
boundary with Idaho.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul B. Barton, Esq.
Alexander Graven, Esq.
OLSEN BARTON LLC
4035 Douglas Way, Suite 200
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Telephone: (503) 558-5293
Facsimile: (503) 820-2933
E-mail: paul@olsenbarton.com
alex@olsenbarton.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian Simmonds Marshall, Esq.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
100 SW Market Street
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (971) 673-1880
E-mail: brian.s.marshall@doj.state.or.us
- and -
Anthony A. Todaro, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
701 5th Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 839-4830
Facsimile: (206) 839-4801
E-mail: anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com
POSTMEDS INC: Reed Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POSTMEDS, INC. d/b/a TRUEPILL, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05710 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 6, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant arising from the recent cyberattack and data
breach resulting from PostMeds' failure to implement reasonable and
industry standard data security practices.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant
on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the
data breach. The breach incident was a direct result of Defendant's
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect its customers'
private information from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class
Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of
fraud and identity theft, says the suit.
PostMeds, Inc. doing business as TruePill, provides online pharmacy
delivery services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Oguin Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE OGUIN, MD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; ARIETIS
HEALTH LLC; ANESTHESIA CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT, LP; and NORTHSTAR
ANESTHESIA OF MISSOURI, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00817-FJG
(W.D. Mo., Nov. 6, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and
Class Members' personally identifiable information.
According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained the private
information of millions of individuals in a negligent manner. In
particular, the private information was maintained on computer
systems and networks that utilized MOVEit, which contained security
vulnerabilities. These security vulnerabilities led to dozens of
cyberattacks, including the present data breach that resulted in
the theft of Plaintiff's patient personal information, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a current and ongoing risk
of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social
Security numbers -- the gold prize for identity thieves.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants
seeking redress for their unlawful conduct and asserting claims
for: (i) negligence; (ii) breach of third-party beneficiary
contract; (iii) negligence per se; (iv) unjust enrichment; and (v)
declaratory judgment.
Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts based software
company that offers software products and services to corporate and
governmental entities throughout the United States and the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7112
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Kristin A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
REAL FOOD: Fails to Pay Bartender's Minimum Wages, Covington Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIDAN COVINGTON v. REAL FOOD DAILY, LLC; PAUL BETTCHER; and DOES
1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV25449 (Cal. Super., Oct. 18,
2023) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked,
including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for
"off the clock" work.
Accordingly, REAL FOOD had a company policy wherein they would
disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting
in "time shaving." Furthermore, and to the extent that the
Plaintiff and others worked through their meal periods while "off
the clock", they were not compensated for all hours worked, which
would be akin to a minimum wage violation. Due to the above "off
the clock" violations, Real Food also violated Labor Code section
510 because it failed to pay the Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees overtime compensation, even though they worked more than
8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours per week
throughout their employment, the lawsuit asserts.
The Defendants allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff premium wages of
at least one and one-half times the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay
for hours worked past 40 in a week.
Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 218.5, 512, 558, and 1194, the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the nonpayment of
wages for all hours worked, penalties, plus reasonable attorney's
fees and costs of suit. Pursuant to California Labor Code Sections
218.6, 510, 1194, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
Sections 11050, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for
the nonpayment of overtime premiums for all overtime hours worked,
penalties, interest, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs of
suit, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff started working at Real Food as a bartender on 2022.
The Plaintiff was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and
her latest rate of pay was $16.04 per hour. The Plaintiff's
employment ended on June 2023.
Real Food is an organic vegan restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
RESERVE AT LAVISTA: Faces Class Suit Over Apartment Fire
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric Mock of Yahoo! News reports that residents of the apartments
at the Reserve at LaVista Walk announced November 18, 2023 they
plan to file a class action lawsuit against the apartment's owners
soon.
The residents claim the owners knew about the problems with the
fire suppression system, as well as other ongoing issues, and
ignored them, leading to the tragedy.
Many of them say the lawsuit is not about getting paid, but about
holding who they claim to be a negligent landlord accountable.
"What we're looking to do is, in the next couple of days, file a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all of these people behind me,"
said resident Alissa Green.
Green was joined by other displaced residents outside of their
former home on Lavista Road on November 18, 2023. She's lived in
her apartment since May and says she lost irreplaceable items.
"This shouldn't have happened to us and we should have been
protected better from this," Green said. "I lost every piece of art
I have done since I was 12 years old. I lost my family's recipes
that [have] been passed down for almost 100 years."
"It is a loss for everybody," said resident of three years, Shanaya
Dessin.
Dessin warned potential renters about the broken fire sprinkler
system in a Google Review posted a month ago. At the time, she
wrote the whole building was at risk of being engulfed one day.
Attorneys for Dessin, Green and the others say they've found
evidence of the sprinkler system not working.
"In June of 2022, two control valves were diagnosed as being
broken. They also knew that there were corroded sprinkler heads and
there were other issues," said Attorney Doug Dean.
Yet last week, Atlanta Fire Rescue Chief Rod Smith told the media
the reason the sprinklers didn't go off was because the fire
started in the roof.
"A typical fire will burn upwards, where you will have activation
of the alarms as well as the sprinkler system. However, this one
started in the roof, so it was a complete anomaly," he explained.
"So, the systems will not detect that until later into the alarm."
But Dean claims even if that was true, the owners knowingly failed
to block access to the roof where two suspects reportedly lit
fireworks that likely ignited the blaze.
"This totally could have been prevented. There is no reason that
people should have been allowed on the roof," said Dean.
FOX 5 attempted to reach out to the apartment owners on November
18, 2023 for comment. They could not be reached by phone or email.
[GN]
RH: Williams Sues Over Call Center Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
TONY WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RH, a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-05706 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 6, 2023) is a collective and
class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, arising from Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA and
common law by systematically failing to compensate its employees
for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts,
when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system,
which resulted in employees not being paid for all overtime hours
worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and
in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours.
Plaintiff Williams is a resident of Zephyrhills, Florida and worked
for Defendant in its Tampa brick and mortar call center as a
non-exempt customer service representative from approximately May
2022 to August 2022.
RH is a retailer and luxury lifestyle brand operating primarily in
the home furnishings market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
402 W Broadway Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: akarbal@sommerspc.com
ROBLOX CORP: Faces Another Suit Over Unsafe Platform for Children
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Price of PC Mag reports that a Roblox Spokesperson provided
the following comment regarding the lawsuit:
"We dispute the allegations and will respond in court. Roblox is
committed to providing a positive and safe experience for people of
all ages. We have an expert team of thousands of people dedicated
to moderation and safety on Roblox 24/7, and we act swiftly to
block inappropriate content or behavior when detected, including
sexual content which violates our Community Standards. We have a
number of features specifically designed to keep kids safe
including filtering text chat on the platform to block
inappropriate content or personal information and offering parental
controls and features to limit or turn off chat. We have invested
in building tools to give parents visibility into their children's
activity, including to prevent them from making unauthorized
purchases.
We also partner with more than 20 leading global organizations that
focus on child safety, online safety, or both, and belong to a
number of industry organizations developing best practices to keep
users, particularly children, safe. "
Back in August, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Roblox
alleging that the gaming platform facilitates illegal child
gambling, and now the company has been named in yet another civil
lawsuit, this one from families who say they have lost a large
amount of money after being told by Roblox that the site was "safe
and appropriate" for children.
The complaint, filed in San Diego Superior Court, accuses Roblox of
"intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and State Consumer
Protection Acts."
The complaint notes that to participate in the Roblox community,
players -- who are often young children -- need to use Robux, a
digital currency the children may not realize is tied to actual
real-world currency, or who can't appreciate the value of due to
their age.
"Roblox is an astoundingly popular platform, on par with Barbie and
Lego as a one-word brand name that sparks trust among parents and
educators. But it's a misplaced trust and is completely
undeserved," said Anne Andrews, Founding Partner of Andrews &
Thornton, one of the law firms involved in the suit. "Parents need
to know about the dangers that children encounter in Roblox's
metaverse, and children need to know that when they are spending
Robux, they are spending their parents' real money."
"Roblox claims it goes 'above and beyond' to keep kids safe, but
the systems that monitor lewd behavior often fail, and the platform
makes it nearly impossible for parents to monitor, track, and
quantify where and how children spend their money."
According to the February 2022 SEC filing, 60% of Roblox users are
under the age of 16, 23% of those users are between the ages of
9-12, and 22% are under the age of 9.
The lawsuit claims that parents have encountered their children
playing with "nude avatars, avatars engaging in intercourse, and
use of sex toys, as well as virtual strip clubs." Several of the
parents also mention incidents of grooming on the platform as well
as links being sent to children for pornography sites.
The parents allege that despite Roblox's Community Guidelines,
which state "If your child is under 13, we make it extremely
difficult for strangers on Roblox to contact them," almost all of
the safeguards on the platform are disabled by default. [GN]
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Deits Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
KELLIE DEITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-02385-GMS (D. Ariz., November 14, 2023) arises under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff received a call in which the caller
identified themselves as calling on behalf of Rocket Mortgage.
During the call, the caller offered her mortgage lending products
and services she had not requested nor inquired about. Ignoring her
request not to be contacted, Defendant called Plaintiff at least 27
more times over the next 10 days. Moreover, Plaintiff has been
harmed by the acts of Defendant, including, but not limited to, the
invasion of her privacy and the intrusion on her telephone that
occupied it from receiving legitimate communications, says the
suit.
Rocket Mortgage, LLC, formerly Quicken Loans, LLC, is an American
mortgage lender, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. In January
2018, the company became the largest overall retail lender in the
US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
KENT LAW OFFICES
3219 East Camelback Road, Unit 588
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (480) 247-9644
E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com
- and -
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
wsweetnam@keoghlaw.com
SCIENTIFIC CALIBRATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Henkel Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY HENKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCIENTIFIC CALIBRATION, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00653 (E.D.N.C., November 14, 2023) alleges
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.
he Defendant hired Plaintiff Henkel as a technician on or about
December 16, 2019. Henkel's employment terminated on October 5,
2023. Throughout the duration of her employment with Defendant,
Henkel and the Collective received biweekly paychecks from
Defendant that did not properly record or compensate them for all
overtime hours that they worked, the suit says.
Headquartered in Cary, NC, Scientific Calibration provides sales
and service of scientific instruments to customers located
throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Telephone: (704) 612-0038
E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com
corey@gibbonslg.com
SIMI VALLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Crane et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------
SEAN CRANE, JENNIFER BEAUSOLEIL, MADISON PALMER, and DENISE ORD, on
behalf of the State of California and others similarly situated and
aggrieved, Plaintiffs v. SIMI VALLEY HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, a California Nonprofit Corporation; ADVENTIST HEALTH
SYSTEM/WEST, a California Nonprofit Corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV27911 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., November 14, 2023) seeks to recover Private
Attorneys General Act's civil penalties for Defendants' violations
of the California Labor Code.
One of the Plaintiffs, Sean Crane, worked for the Defendants as a
non-exempt employee with a job title of radiographic technologist
from in or around 2017 and continuing through the present.
Allegedly, Plaintiff Crane and other aggrieved employees were
subjected to the Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding
policies in which they were automatically deducted at least 30
minutes per shift for meal periods even if they were not afforded
lawful meal periods. As a result, they were never compensated for
all time worked, says the suit.
Simi Valley Hospital and Health Care Services own, operate, manage
and/or staff its employees to work at the hospitals, medical
centers, surgery centers, imaging centers, lab facilities, offices
and/or other facilities and/or other location(s) in California,
including but not limited to the hospitals, medical centers,
surgery centers, imaging centers, lab facilities, offices and/or
other facilities in Simi Valley, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: jamie@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA: Appeals Remand Ruling in Elkins Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Indiana Health Management Inc. filed an appeal from
the District Court's October 10, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit
styled BRIAN ELKINS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, ANNIE ELKINS Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA
HEALTH MANAGEMENT INC. D/B/A COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTH, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01117-JRS-TAB, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was
removed from the Marion County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 26, 2023.
The suit is a data privacy class action wherein Plaintiff Elkins
(alongside Annie Elkins and a putative class) alleges that a
website-tracking "pixel" embedded in a hospital's patient portal
shared his health data without his consent.
On October 10, 2023, Judge James R. Sweeney II entered an Order
granting Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to Marion County
Superior Court.
The appellate case is captioned as Southeastern Indiana Health
Management Inc. v. Brian Elkins, et al., Case No. 23-3159, in the
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 9,
2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript information sheet was due by November 24, 2023;
and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before December 19, 2023 for
Southeastern Indiana Health Management Inc.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA HEALTH MANAGEMENT INC.,
doing business as COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTH, is represented by:
Peter French, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
One Indiana Square
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2023
Telephone: (317) 440-4637
Plaintiff-Appellee ANNIE ELKINS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD
One Indiana Square
Indianapolis, IN 46204-0000
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
TRIBIKE TRANSPORT: Faces Suit Over Athletes' Bikes Unpaid Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Mackinnon of Triathlon Magazine reports that earlier this
week we reported that after it had failed to get payment from
TriBike Transport (TBT), New Jersey-based shipping company Horizon
Entertainment Cargo was holding 180 bikes that belonged to athletes
who had represented USA Triathlon at the world championship in
Pontevedra, Spain.
In a lawsuit filed in California, Intelligent SCM, LLC (doing
business as Horizon Entertainment Cargo) says it is owed
US$319,731.27 and "has exercised its lien rights and is currently
in possession of these 180 bikes" and maintained that it had the
right to sell the bikes "at public or private sale or auction"
unless it is paid by TBT.
The lawyer who filed the suit has told Triathlete Magazine that the
company has no intention of selling the bikes and intends "to
contact each of the bike owners to arrange of shipping cost and
prompt return."
Three of the 180 athletes with bikes that are being held - Bruce
Williams, Robyn Williams and Tim Lundt - have now started a class
action suit against Intelligent/ Horizon which claims that the
shipper only has the right to seize TBT's property in the case of
breach of payment, not the property of the athletes using the TBT
service. The suit cites the potential for over 100 additional
claimants and also puts the value of the bikes being held at over
$1 million.
"Day 56 we haven't got our bikes back"
We caught up with one of the complainants in the class action suit,
Tim Lundt, earlier on November 18, 2023.
The race in Pontevedra was Lundt's first world championship and,
because he was travelling with his daughter and there were lots of
flight connections, he decided to spend the US$785 on the TriBike
service. He also spent an additional $50 to insure his bike, too.
Lundt says the TBT service came highly recommended, and found the
compan's service in Spain was excellent. Well, until he got home
and was waiting for his bike.
"It's a mess," Lundt said when asked about the situation. "I've
worked a long time to be able to afford a tri bike, and then the
first overseas world championship I go to, my bike doesn't come
back. This is day 56 that we haven't got our bikes back yet."
Lundt had intended to compete at the upcoming USA Triathlon Long
Distance National Championship in Daytona, but has now pulled out
because he "hasn't had the quality of training without his tri
bike."
After getting his knee replaced three years ago, Lundt started to
compete in Aquabike events and "is just getting strong enough to be
competitive at a national level." He finished ninth in the men's 60
to 64 age group in Pontevedra and was the third American. He's
already qualified for next year's World Triathlon Multisport
Festival in Townsville, Australia, and intends to compete there. He
says he won’t be able to afford the trip, though, if he has to
pay for a new triathlon bike.
Lundt invested about US$6,000 in his A2 SP bike, which he figures
is on the low end of the cost for many of the bikes being held by
Horizon. Formerly a high school teacher in Alaska, Lundt moved back
to Colorado a few years ago to be closer to his family. He started
teaching again in Colorado "to be able to do the races and buy the
bike."
USA Triathlon looks to help find bikes
Lundt says that he and the other athletes affected by the TBT
issues "didn't hear a lot from USA Triathlon other than they were
working behind the scenes."
"I don't think USA Triathlon has the money (to be able to recover
the bikes). " Lundt says.
On November 16, 2023 TBT confirmed that it wouldn't be providing
any service to athletes competing in Daytona. Aware that there were
athletes like Lundt who were hoping to compete in Daytona who still
didn't have their bikes, USA Triathlon has been trying to reach out
to triathletes in the area to see if they can loan the athletes
bikes they can use for the race.
Bikes in a warehouse in Chicago
Lundt says that some athletes have AirTags on their bikes and were
able to trace them to a warehouse in Chicago. He spoke to an
employee from Horizon at the warehouse who appeared to be
sympathetic, but felt they had to hold onto the bikes because
"that's the only way we're going to get our money back."
TBT owes the shipping company over US$300,000. The shipment from
Pontevedra wasn't the only one that was at issue - Ironman has
stepped in to help its athletes get their bikes from over five
different events, including the Ironman World Championship in Kona,
and has also helped get athletes bikes to Ironman events in Cozumel
and Arizona. A source has confirmed that this is all at Ironman's
expense.
Earlier this week we did hear from TBT founder and owner Marc
Lauzon who reiterated that "we have been and continue to do
everything we can to get the bikes released as soon as possible."
TBT did file a TRO (temporary restraining order) in North Carolina
ordering Horizon to "relinquish possession of the bikes to TriBike
so they could return them to Plaintiffs," which is why, presumably,
the bikes were moved first to New Jersey and then to Chicago.
Horizon's lawyer told Triathlete Magazine that "the order issued in
North Carolina does not apply to the named defendants in the class
action suit."
None of which helps Lundt or the other athletes whose bikes are
currently being held. Lundt is hopeful the situation will be
remedied soon, but fears that "if, for some reason, Horizon does
sell those bikes, that class action lawsuit could take some time."
[GN]
UNITED STATES: Al Otro Files Appeal in Asylum Process Denial Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Al Otro Lado, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from court
rulings entered in the lawsuit styled AL OTRO LADO, INC., a
California Corporation; HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE, a California
Corporation; DIEGO DOE, ELENA DOE, GUADALUPE DOE, ALEXANDER DOE,
LAURA DOE, LUISA DOE, MICHELLE DOE, NATASHA DOE, PABLO DOE, AND
SOMAR DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Plaintiffs v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; TROY A.
MILLER, Senior Official Performing the Duties of Commissioner, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity; DIANE J.
SABATINO, Acting Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field
Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in her official
capacity; Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01367-AGS-BLM, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
According to the complaint filed on July 27, 2023, Individual
Plaintiffs are noncitizens who, after fleeing grave harm in their
home countries, have tried to seek access to the U.S. asylum
process by presenting themselves at Class A ports of entry along
the U.S.-Mexico border (POEs), but have been denied that
fundamental right due to their inability to obtain an appointment
via Defendants' One smartphone application by the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection. The Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' border-wide
policy and widespread practice of turning back arriving noncitizens
without CBP One appointments at or near Class A POEs and thereby
denying them access to the asylum process. This policy and
widespread practice, referred to as the "CBP One Turnback Policy,"
contravenes statutory, constitutional, and international law, as
well as Defendants' binding agency guidance, asserts the complaint.
Through the CBP One Turnback Policy, Defendants have injured both
organizational and Individual Plaintiffs, says the complaint. This
Policy has wreaked havoc on the lives of Individual Plaintiffs by
denying them access to the U.S. asylum process and forcing them to
live in dangerous Mexican border towns where they are subject to
assault, rape, kidnapping, extortion, and even murder. The CBP One
Turnback Policy has harmed Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance
by frustrating their missions and forcing them to divert a
substantial portion of their limited time and resources away from
their core programs to counteract the effects of the Policy, adds
the complaint.
On August 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a MOTION to Proceed
Pseudonymously and a MOTION to Certify Class.
On August 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs also filed a MOTION for
preliminary injunction.
On October 13, 2023, the Court held a motion hearing. Consequently,
Plaintiffs' motion to proceed pseudonymously was granted, the
motion for preliminary injunction was denied, and the motion for
provisional class certification was denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned as Al Otro Lado, Inc., et al. v.
Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 23-3396, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 9, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants AL OTRO LADO, INC., a California Corporation;
HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE, a California Corporation; DIEGO DOE, ELENA
DOE, GUADALUPE DOE, ALEXANDER DOE, LAURA DOE, LUISA DOE, MICHELLE
DOE, NATASHA DOE, PABLO DOE, AND SOMAR DOE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Stephen M. Medlock, Esq.
VINSON & ELKINS, LLP
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20037-1701
- and -
Baher Azmy, Esq.
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
666 Broadway 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
- and -
Neela O. Chakravartula, Esq.
UC HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW
200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
- and -
Melissa E. Crow, Esq.
CENTER FOR GENDER AND REFUGEE STUDIES
1121 14th Street, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
- and -
Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq.
MAYER BROWN, LLP
333 S Grand Avenue 47th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 621-9465
E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Michelle N. Webster, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3714
E-mail: mwebster@mayerbrown.com
Defendants-Appellees ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., are
represented by:
Katherine Shinners, Esq.
DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation
P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
- and -
Jason Wisecup, Esq.
U.S. DEPT. JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION Office of Immigration Litigation
Section Liberty Square Bldg.
450 5th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 451-7743
E-mail: jason.wisecup@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Fails to Exempt Parolees From $410 Filing Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Stanislav Astakhov, Alona Astakhova, Yevhenii Shapiro, and
Anastasiia Volkova, for themselves and all others similarly
situated v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,
United States Department of Homeland Security, and United States of
America, Case No. 1:23-cv-07565-LB (D.D.C., Oct. 17, 2023)
challenges the Defendants' failure to provide them employment
authorization incident to status, and failure to exempt them from
the $410 filing fee.
On May 21, 2022, President Biden signed into law Public Law 117-128
which contained nearly identical language to the Afghan Parolee Act
and provided "other benefits available to refugees" to certain
Ukrainian Parolees. Under the Ukrainian Parolee Act, Ukrainian
parolees are entitled to the same work authorization benefits as
refugees. Notwithstanding, the Defendants unlawfully required
Afghan and Ukrainian parolees to receive employment authorization
prior to starting work and to pay the $410 fee for filing a Form
I-765.
According to the complaint, on November 21, 2022, USCIS
acknowledged the mistake. Despite conceding that Ukrainian and
Afghan parolees are entitled to the benefits of "employment
authorization incident to status normally accorded to refugees and
a no-fee initial (and replacement of initial) EAD," the Defendants
have refused to refund the fees of Ukrainian and Afghan parolees
who paid the $410 fee prior to the November 21, 2022 news alert,
the Plaintiffs assert.
Since July 31, 2021, tens of thousands of Afghan and Ukrainian
citizens have been paroled into the United States due to the
ongoing crisis in their respective countries through humanitarian
programs including, Uniting for Ukraine, Operating Allies Refuge,
and Operation Allies Welcome.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Class:
All individuals or entities who paid the $410 filing fee for
Forms I-765 filed by Afghan and Ukrainian parolees who were
entitled to "other benefits available to refugees" under the
Afghan Parolee Act and the Ukrainian Parolee Act.
Plaintiff Stanislav Astakhov is a Ukrainian national residing in
Irvine, California while Plaintiff Astakhov was paroled into the
United States on June 11, 2022.
USCIS administers the Immigration and Nationality Act and is
charged with processing the Form I-765s and collecting the relevant
filing fees for applying for employment authorization.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth Smith, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
401 9th St. NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 232-5504
Facsimile: (202) 232-5513
E-mail: esmith@motleyrice.com
UNITED STATES: Maloney Appeals Discrimination Case Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Angela Eve Maloney filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion dated September 28, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit styled ANGELA MALONEY, individually, on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official
capacity as Secretary, United States Department of State,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00809-ABJ, in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
Plaintiff Angela Maloney initiated this action on April 9, 2018,
against the Secretary of the United States Department of State,
where she was formerly employed as a Foreign Service Officer. Her
amended complaint alleges that the Department discriminated against
her in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when it denied
her the reasonable accommodation she requested for her wrist
disability.
On April 14, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. The Defendant argues it is entitled to summary judgment
because the agency did not deny Maloney's March 2, 2017 request for
an accommodation of her disability.
On September 28, 2023, Judge Amy Berman Jackson signed an Order
granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Angela Maloney v. Antony
Blinken, Case No. 23-5249, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on November 6,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Angela Eve Maloney, individually, on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Cassidy Clark, Esq.
BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 444-9300
- and -
Anna Purna Prakash, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 Ids Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Defendant-Appellee Antony J. Blinken, in his official capacity as
Secretary, United States Department of State, is represented by:
Jane M. Lyons, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-2500
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Deployment of Faulty AI Model
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of Gene B. Lokken and The Estate of Dale Henry Tetzloff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.,
NAVIHEALTH, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
0:23-cv-03514 (D. Minn., November 14, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' illegal deployment of artificial intelligence in place
of real medical professionals to wrongfully deny elderly patients
care owed to them under Medicare Advantage Plans by overriding
their treating physicians' determinations as to medically necessary
care based on an AI model that Defendants know has a 90% error
rate.
Allegedly, the Defendants wrongfully delegate their obligation to
evaluate and investigate claims to the nH Predict AI Model. The nH
Predict AI Model spits out generic recommendations that fail to
adjust for a patient's individual circumstances and conflict with
basic rules on what Medicare Advantage plans must cover, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Minnetonka, MN, UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is the
nation's largest insurance company. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., the
insurance arm of UnitedHealth Group, Inc., provides health
insurance plans for 52.9 million Americans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
David W. Asp, Esq.
Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
Derek C. Waller, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South, Ste 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
dwasp@locklaw.com
kgmarttila@locklaw.com
dcwaller@locklaw.com
- and -
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
Ryan Clarkson, Esq.
Zarrina Ozari, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
E-mail: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
zozari@clarksonlawfirm.com
*********
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 ***