/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231205.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 5, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 243
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Court Stays Discovery in Parris Suit
A-1 OXYGEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Suit Alleges
AES GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Moynihan Extended to Dec. 6
ALLIED WASTE: Court Tosses as Moot Bid for Class Certification
ALTERRAON PHILLIPS: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Take Judicial Notice
AMP LTD: To Settle Buyer of Last Resort Class Action for $100MM
ARROW FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ashe Class Suit in N.D.N.Y.
BALL STATE: Averts COVID Tuition Fee Refund Class Action
BARCLAYS PLC: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 2, 2024
BIOMETRIC IMPRESSION: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Action in Ill.
BLUEMERCURY INC: Class Action Settlement in Bethel Gets Initial Nod
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit
C&H SUGAR: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Gutierrez Class Suit
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Williams Suit Alleges Data Privacy Violation
CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Generic Drugs Antitrust Suit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Shareholder Suit Settled for $109MM
CENTINELA FEED: Paura Sues Over Labor Code Breaches
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Reuschel
CHARTER MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay the Minimum Wages, Setliff Says
CLOROX COMPANY: Class Settlement in Swetz Suit Gets Initial Nod
COMMUNITY MOBILE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Rendon et al. Say
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
CORSAIR GAMING: Must Oppose McKinney Class Cert Bid by Dec. 8
DONOTPAY INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Illegal Practices
EAH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suarez Suit Claims
ENZO BIOCHEM: Faces Louis Action Over Data Breach
ENZO BIOCHEM: Faces Sgambati Action Over Data Breach
EXPEDIA GROUP: Huber Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 29, 2024
FERRARI NORTH: Class Action Over Brake Failure Revived
FLINT WATER: Class Settlement in Waid Gets Initial Nod
FOUNDATION ENERGY: Final Approval of Settlement in Ritter Sought
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 22
GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Airbag Class Action in Calif.
GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Heiden Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
HBT FINANCIAL: Faces Pickett Suit Over Overdraft Dispute
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Securities Class Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Dixon Discrimination Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Zigler Home Class Suit
KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Flaherty Bid for Class Status Tossed as Moot
KATMAI TECHNICAL: Bid for Class Cert in Guzman Due May 15, 2024
KURA SUSHI: Amended Ruling in Gowen Suit Awaits Court Signature
LEGACY PROPERTIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 29, 2024
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Certification Discovery Due Feb. 15, 2024
LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Boorn Class Suit
LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Casino Queen Class Suit
LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Giuliano Class Suit
LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Tonkawa Class Suit
LUTHER BURBANK: Faces Siegel Suit Over SEC Disclosures
MCDONALD'S AUSTRALIA: Clayton Utz Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
MIDAMERICA BASEMENT: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL: Extension of Class Cert Discovery Sought
MISTER CAR WASH: To Settle Labor Dispute After Mediation
MOELIS & COMPANY: Firemen's Fund Files Shareholder Suit in DE Court
MOVE INC: Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
MOVE INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition
NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs Want Federal Receiver Appointed
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Jerome Claims
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
ONTARIO: Class Action Over Abuse in Psych Hospital Certified
PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Faces Two Suits Over IBIPA Violations
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Faces Felipe Suit in California
PUERTO RICO: Plaintiffs Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Sunderland Suit Under Appeal
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Pierce Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
RESCUE DOGS: Donor Files Class Action Over Sham Dog Rescue
ROBERT PACE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification
SC HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 8
SHELL PLC: Nigerian Fishermen Can Pursue Class Action
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Hoesch Says
SYMRISE INC: Faces Class Action Over 2022 Chemical Explosion
TAHOE RESOURCES: Settlement in Attigui Gets Initial Nod
TD BANK: Must Respond to Nelipa Class Cert Bid by Jan. 12, 2024
TENASKA MARKETING: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Gas Prices
UNITED STATES: Class Cert Hearing Set for Dec. 11, 2023
UNITED STATES: Court Stays Jimenez Suit Until Dec. 11
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Certification Due Jan. 29, 2024
VERADIGM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 22
*********
3M COMPANY: Court Stays Discovery in Parris Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR.
Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order that
the Moving Defendants' motion to stay is granted as amended by
reply.
Discovery in this action is stayed in part through February 2,
2024. Specifically, pursuant to the Moving Defendants agreement
with Defendant Huntsman, Plaintiff Parris, and Intervenor-Plaintiff
City of Summerville:
1. Written discovery as to all Defendants other than 3M, EIDP,
and
The Chemours Company shall proceed and shall not be stayed;
2. Plaintiff Parris may proceed with written discovery as to all
parties, including 3M, EIDP, and the Chemours Company; and
3. All depositions are hereby stayed through and until February
2,
2024.
The parties are directed to submit a proposed scheduling order to
the Court by February 16, 2024.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QRtC20 at no
extra charge.[CC]
A-1 OXYGEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A-1 OXYGEN, INC., Corporation; and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23GDCV02474 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., November 20, 2023) alleges violations of the the
California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders, California Code of Civil Procedure, California Civil
Code, and the California Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff Julio Ramirez was employed by Defendant A-1 as a driver
from approximately November 2022 to June 26, 2023 at A-1's Glendale
location as a non-exempt employee and was and is paid in whole or
in part on an hourly basis. In the class action complaint,
Plaintiff Ramirez alleges that the Defendants were engaged in a
uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against
Plaintiff, including, without limitation, depriving Plaintiff of
uninterrupted thirty-minute meal periods for work periods of at
least five hours; depriving Plaintiff of ten-minute rest periods
for work periods of four hours or major fractions; failing to
compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, including overtime
wages; failing to provide timely, accurate itemized wage
statements; and failing to pay, within the time constraints imposed
by applicable laws, all earned compensation at separation of
employment.
Headquartered in A-1 Oxygen, Inc. provides medical supplies, such
as hospital beds, respiratory devices, mobility, bathroom aide,
incontinence supplies, and enteral feeding for patients in hospice
and is located in Glendale, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Adams, Esq.
Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
KJT LAW GROUP LLP
230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
Glendale, CA 91206
Telephone: 818.507.8525
E-mail: chris@kjtlawgroup.com
vache@kjtlawgroup.com
caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
AES GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Moynihan Extended to Dec. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moynihan v. AES Group USA,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-11889 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 9, 2022),
the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order granting joint
motion for extension of time to December 6, 2023 to file motion to
certify class Pursuant to Rule 23.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
AES provides full service engineering and architecture.
ALLIED WASTE: Court Tosses as Moot Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QIHAI CHEN and DUALTONE
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., and DOES 1-50 Case No.
3:22-cv-00099-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta
entered an order denying as moot motion for class certification.
The Court held oral argument on the motion on November 15, 2023.
During this hearing, Plaintiffs represented that they seek to
certify a different class than the class currently proposed in
their class certification motion.
The Plaintiffs may file a reply on or before December 20, 2023. The
Court sets the motion for hearing on January 3, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.
Allied Waste is a trash company that offers waste management
services for non-hazardous solid waste.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49SYrMo at no extra charge.[CC]
ALTERRAON PHILLIPS: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Take Judicial Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD BORTNIAK, et al.,
v. ALTERRAON PHILLIPS, ESQ. and APLAW LLC, a Florida limited
liability corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-82516-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs requests the Court to take judicial notice of the
complaints the Defendants filed in 2021 and 2022 against the
Plaintiffs in this case, and the voluntary dismissals filed in
those cases as applicable.
The lawsuits were all based on the ledgers prepared by APLaw, which
included the identical charges for all owners for the years 2010
– 2014, plus accrued interest for those years, late fees and
attorney's fees -- all of which are problematic for the reasons
explained in Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support
of Amended Motion for Class Certification and in the coming motion
for summary judgment.
In this case, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were
attempting to collect the same debts that the Circuit Court
determined were not owed, which were comprised of elements that the
Defendants knew its client, the Villages POA, could not collect,
and which were clearly time barred, all in violation of the Federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
The complaints and voluntary dismissals filed against the
Plaintiffs are the basis of the Plaintiff's claims in this case.
The Plaintiffs are all current or former owners of condominium
units at The Sterling. The Plaintiffs were not parties in the state
court lawsuit. The Sterling is a condominium association located on
Village Boulevard in the City of West Palm Beach. It has 319
condominiums.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GfYFQm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
STEVEN H. MEYER, P.A.
401 West Pine Street, Suite 100
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 289-0803
Facsimile: (407) 539-2978
Steven H. Meyer, Esq.
E-mail: steven@thefirm.legal
AMP LTD: To Settle Buyer of Last Resort Class Action for $100MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dastoor, writing for Professional Planner, reports that AMP
will settle the Buyer of Last Resort class action for $100 million,
closing a chapter for some, but leaving others underwhelmed.
The settlement ends the BOLR class action proceedings, preventing
the legal action from dragging on for several more years and AMP is
not required to make any admission of liability.
After the court ruled in favour of the class action plaintiffs led
by Corrs Chambers Westgarth in July, AMP announced in September it
would appeal the decision with the aim of reaching a settlement if
possible.
Professional Planner understands mediation was held over two
sessions in November, with the second session on 22 November and
the announcement of a settlement made before the market opened on
Nov. 23.
AMP group executive for advice Matt Lawler tells Professional
Planner the settlement was an important step to deal with the past
and address the legacy matters.
"This mediation gave us a chance to deal with the class action in
its entirety rather than waiting for another few years for more
cases to be heard. It gave us an opportunity to bring it all
together and wrap it up in one go," Lawler says.
"We're pleased we got a result. No one wants this going on forever
into the future so it's pleasing we got to an outcome."
David Haseldine, a former AMP adviser and class action plaintiff,
says the reaction with those in the class action camp has been
mixed and hinted at potential future legal action.
"Some of the people are happy to see it finalised," Haseldine says.
"Some of us [are more] jaded than that."
Haseldine adds he believes the $100 million will not sufficiently
cover what many involved in the class action estimate they are
owed.
"At this point in time what they've done is open the door for
planners like to me use the July 2023 ruling against them in
individual action against AMP to make up the difference," he says.
Neil Macdonald, CEO of the The Adviser Association which represents
AMP licensees, says most of the members will be pleased a decision
has been made.
"Our understanding is that Corrs will need to work through what
that means for individual firms in the class action," Macdonald
said.
"From our perspective, it's good a decision has been made and we
will acknowledge the current leadership and management was prepared
to go to mediation to try and get a resolution."
AMP changed the BOLR agreement under the leadership of former group
CEO Francesco De Ferrari and domestic CEO Alex Wade during the
Hayne royal commission, fearing a "BOLR run".
The agreement would change from AMP buying practices, as a supposed
last resort, from four times recurring revenue to 2.5 times, with
further reductions for grandfathered commissions, which led to the
class action being filed in July 2020.
AMP made a provision of $50 million in 1H23 financial statements
based on the judgement on 5 July 2023 and the settlement announced
on Nov. 23 covers the class action in its entirety.
Lawler said the company had worked hard with those practices over
the last couple of years.
"We've rebuilt trust in terms of the way we're dealing with them
and supporting them, but this was a threshold issue that had to be
dealt with and we're really pleased that we've gone another step
towards putting it behind us," Lawler says.
In a statement to the ASX, AMP chief executive Alexis George said
the settlement allows AMP to put a legacy matter behind it which
has "impacted relationships with our valued advisers".
"We've worked very hard in recent years on rebuilding the
relationship with advisers and we're looking forward to working
with them in the delivery of quality financial advice, at a time
when Australians need it more than ever," George said. [GN]
ARROW FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ashe Class Suit in N.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arrow Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Ashe class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York.
The Company became aware that on June 23, 2023, Robert C. Ashe
filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
In addition to the Company, the complaint names as defendants
Thomas J. Murphy, the Company's former CEO and from September 30,
2022 to February 20, 2023, its interim CFO, Edward J. Campanella,
the Company's former CFO, and Penko Ivanov, the Company's current
CFO (the "Individual Defendants" and, together with the Company,
the "Defendants").
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations
and compliance policies in the Company's public filings between
March 12, 2022 and May 12, 2023.
The complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants are
liable for these materially false and misleading statements as
"controlling persons" of the Company.
Based on these allegations, the complaint brings two claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Mr. Ashe, on behalf of a purported class of shareholders, seeks
compensatory damages as well as recovery of the costs and fees
associated with the litigation.
A consolidated amended complaint is due December 5, 2023, and
Defendants' deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the
consolidated amended complaint is February 2, 2024.
The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit and expressly
denies any wrongdoing in connection with the matters claimed in the
complaint and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Arrow Financial Corporation is a bank holding company that
provides
commercial and consumer banking, as well as financial products and
services.[BN]
BALL STATE: Averts COVID Tuition Fee Refund Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Niki Kelly, writing for Local News Digital, reports that the
Indiana Supreme Court on Nov. 22 sided with the state legislature
over a Ball State University student who wants a refund for his
pandemic-interrupted classes in early 2020.
College student Keller Mellowitz was at Ball State for the Spring
2020 semester when the university "sent students home, canceled
in-person classes, and closed campus facilities because of
COVID-19," according to court filings.
He filed a class action complaint against the university and its
board of trustees in Marion County Superior Court in May 2020,
accusing them of "breach of contract and unjust enrichment" over
decisions to cancel in-person classes and close campus facilities
due to the pandemic.
Specifically, Mellowitz cited Ball State's retention of tuition and
"numerous" fees, including those for student services, university
technology, student recreation, student health, and student
transportation.
The 5-0 Indiana Supreme Court decision made three key findings:
-- The law passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2021
barring class action COVID-19 suits doesn't violate the
constitutional separation of powers.
-- The student doesn't have the right to sue on behalf of
others.
-- The law doesn't unconstitutionally impair the student because
he can still pursue individual claims against Ball State.
The lawsuit estimated as many as 20,000 Ball State students were
due some sort of reimbursement.
The General Assembly, however, enacted a retroactive law in 2021
that prohibited class-action complaints against state universities
related to COVID-19. Instead, Mellowitz -- and any other students
impacted -- would have to file individual suits.
The Nov. 22 ruling said the legislature didn't encroach on judicial
powers because the law's scope was limited to a narrow category of
COVID-19 claims and had a public policy objective -- "reducing
postsecondary educational institutions' litigation exposure for
their emergency responses to the pandemic."
The decision also reinforced that Mellowitz can sue for his own
damages -- but isn't entitled to class-action status on behalf of
other students.
During oral arguments in the case, his attorney said individual
suits aren't feasible due to only a few thousand dollars being at
stake.
"The purpose of a class action is . . . to provide a remedy where
often the claims are too small to even viably gain counsel," he
said. "As shown in this case, the defense of Ball State is
vigorous." [GN]
BARCLAYS PLC: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 2, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
Pollock Mondal, writing for Investing.com, reports that Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP and Rosen Law Firm have both announced legal actions
against Barclays PLC, with allegations centering on the bank's
former CEO Jes Staley and his undisclosed connections to Jeffrey
Epstein. Investors who purchased securities from July 22, 2019, to
October 12, 2023, are being notified of a lead plaintiff deadline
of January 2, 2024.
The lawsuit initiated by Levi & Korsinsky alleges that Staley had
undisclosed links with Epstein that could have engaged him in
criminal behavior, thus risking the reputation and finances of
Barclays. The accusations include providing false statements to the
British Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regarding Staley's
relationship with Epstein and failing to correct these statements
after conflicting information came to light. The firm is
encouraging affected investors to seek restitution under federal
laws.
In a parallel move, Rosen Law Firm, known for its focus on global
investor rights, has also reached out to Barclays investors
regarding the January deadline. The firm emphasizes the opportunity
for investors to potentially receive compensation on a contingency
basis, meaning no personal fees unless compensation is awarded. The
allegations suggest that Barclays issued misleading statements
about Staley's connections with Epstein, including hidden knowledge
of Epstein's criminal activities and Staley's own alleged
misconduct.
Both law firms have a history of securities litigation success,
with Rosen Law Firm notably recognized by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for its settlement achievements in 2017. These
announcements come as part of the pre-class certification stage,
during which investors can choose their legal representation before
one is assigned by the court. Affected shareholders are advised to
contact the firms for guidance or participation in this legal
matter. [GN]
BIOMETRIC IMPRESSION: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Action in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against BioMetric Impressions Corp. ("BIC") regarding
fingerprinting services it conducted allegedly in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The case is
Sayas v. BioMetric Impression Corp., Case No. 2020 CH 000210,
pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the
"Court"). Although BIC denies the allegations and any wrongdoing,
the parties have decided to settle their dispute (the
"Settlement"). BIC's agreement to settle this matter is not an
admission of any wrongdoing, and the Court has not made any
determination that BIC violated the law. [GN]
BLUEMERCURY INC: Class Action Settlement in Bethel Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE BETHEL, ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BLUEMERCURY, INC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02743-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine
Polk Failla entered an order granting preliminary approval of class
action settlement.
The Plaintiff Bethel's motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement came before this Court on October 9, 2023.
The Plaintiff submitted a supplemental memorandum in support of her
motion on November 3, 2023.
The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement based upon
the terms set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant.
The Court finds the requisites for establishing class certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23, and collective
action certification under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) are met for purposes of the
Settlement only.
Bluemercury is a chain of American beauty stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46p0Uv3 at no extra charge.[CC]
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kennedy class
suit in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.
Kennedy v. Progress Software Corporation, et al. (U.S. District
Court, District of Massachusetts, filed October 3, 2023).
BHF has been named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit.
The action relates to a data security incident at an alleged
third-party vendor, PBI Research Services ("PBI"), and allegedly
involves the MOVEit file transfer system that PBI uses in its
provision of services ("MOVEit Incident").
As it relates to BHF, plaintiff seeks to certify a subclass of
persons whose private information was allegedly maintained by BHF
and accessed or acquired in connection with the MOVEit Incident.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that BHF negligently chose
to utilize PBI to store and transfer plaintiff's and purported
class members' private information despite PBI's use of the MOVEit
software which plaintiff contends contained security
vulnerabilities.
The complaint asserts claims against BHF for negligence, negligence
per se, and unjust enrichment, and plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
interest.
BHF intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the Martin class
suit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, filed April 6,
2021).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of
universal life insurance policies issued or administered by
defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on
improper factors and should have decreased over time due to
improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney’s fees,
interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2021, which was denied in February 2022.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY was initially named as a
defendant when the lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a
defendant, without prejudice, in April 2022.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the Newton class
suit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.
Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
filed May 8, 2020).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned
life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life
insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a
guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased
by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.
Plaintiff also alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on
improper factors and should have decreased over time due to
improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part in March
2021.
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint.
On January 18, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion on consent to
amend the second amended class action complaint to narrow the scope
of the class sought to those persons who own or owned life
insurance policies issued in Georgia.
The motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended
class action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Brighthouse Holdings, LLC and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. It offers a range of annuity and
life insurance products to individuals.
C&H SUGAR: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Gutierrez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDDY GUTIERREZ, v. C&H
SUGAR, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-03192-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Illston entered an order denying motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint and denying motion to strike class
allegations.
The Defendant argues that proposed class is overbroad "because the
geographic boundaries bear no rational relationship to the harm
alleged and encompass individuals who may have sustained no
injury."
The Plaintiff responds that defendant strays from the legal
standard for motion to strike pleadings under Rule 12(f) and
instead offers argumentation regarding "speculative factual
defenses to Plaintiff's anticipated arguments in support of class
certification."
The Plaintiff Gutierrez brings this class action against C&H "for
its release of noxious odors onto Plaintiff's property."
The Defendant owns and operates a sugar refinery and municipal
wastewater treatment facility in Crockett. The C&H sugar facility
offloads, stores, and refines 800,000 tons of raw sugar annually.
The Plaintiff resides in Crockett and alleges the odors the
Facility releases onto his property have caused damages through
public and private nuisance and negligence.
According to plaintiff, defendant has failed to prevent the
emissions from "escaping into the adjacent residential
neighborhood" and as a result, plaintiff's property "has been and
continues to be physically invaded by noxious odors" on "frequent,
recurrent, and continuing occasions too numerous to list."
The noxious odors that entered plaintiff’s property originated
from the Facility "as a result of inadequate, improper, and/or
negligent operation and maintenance" of the wastewater treatment
activities
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class preliminarily defined as:
"All owner/occupants and renters of residential property
residing
within one mile of the Facility's property boundary between the
date three years predating the filing of this Complaint and the
present."
C&H produces and sells cane sugar and molasses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QVdM6s at no extra charge.[CC]
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Williams Suit Alleges Data Privacy Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA WILLIAMS, ROZALYNN FISHER, LAURA DAY, SARUNY BIN, AND
MARLENE CALZADOPAEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01919-JAD-DJA (D. Nev., November 20,
2023) arises from the Caesars' failure to properly secure and
safeguard customer's personally identifying information, which was
compromised in the data breach on or around September 7, 2023,
asserting claims against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, and for violations of the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, although Caesars has not disclosed the
exact number of individuals impacted by the data breach, it has
confirmed that the cybercriminals were able to obtain a copy of
Caesar's loyalty program database, including the driver's license
numbers and Social Security numbers for a "significant number" of
its more than 65 million program members.
Headquartered in Reno, NY, Caesars is a hospitality and
entertainment company that operates destination resorts throughout
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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 -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
4th Floor, Suite #427
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces Generic Drugs Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that it is
facing a generic pharmaceutical pricing antitrust litigation filed
in December 2019.
Pharmaceutical distributors including the company were added as
defendants in the civil class action lawsuit filed by indirect
purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail
pharmacies. The indirect purchaser case is part of a multidistrict
litigation consisting of multiple individual class action matters
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that
pharmaceutical distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase
prices, provided anti-competitive pricing information to
manufacturers and improperly engaged in customer allocation.
In May 2020, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss. In
July 2022, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint and
in August 2022, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Cardinal Health, Inc., an Ohio corporation formed in 1979, is a
global healthcare services and products company providing
customized solutions for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies,
ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, physician
offices and patients in the home. It provides pharmaceuticals and
medical products and cost-effective solutions that enhance supply
chain efficiency and connects patients, providers, payers,
pharmacists and manufacturers for integrated care coordination and
better patient management.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Shareholder Suit Settled for $109MM
----------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that in
February 2023, an agreement was reached in principle with the
plaintiff in a shareholder securities litigation to settle this
matter for $109 million where in September 2023, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered an order
granting final approval and dismissed the case.
In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed
a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and
certain current and former officers and employees in the Southern
District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of company
common shares between March 2015 and May 2018.
In June 2020, the court appointed 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed in September 2020. The amended complaint alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions
related to the acquisition and integration of its former
subsidiary, Cordis Corp., business and inventory and supply chain
problems within the Cordis business and sought to recover
unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged
misstatements and omissions.
The complaint also alleged that one of the individual defendants
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act because he sold shares of
Cardinal Health stock during the time period.
Cardinal Health, Inc., an Ohio corporation formed in 1979, is a
global healthcare services and products company providing
customized solutions for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies,
ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, physician
offices and patients in the home. It provides pharmaceuticals and
medical products and cost-effective solutions that enhance supply
chain efficiency and connects patients, providers, payers,
pharmacists and manufacturers for integrated care coordination and
better patient management.
CENTINELA FEED: Paura Sues Over Labor Code Breaches
---------------------------------------------------
STEVE PAURA, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. CENTINELA FEED,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV28435 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
November 20, 2023) seeks to recover civil penalties for Defendant's
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse worker
from on or around October 20, 2021, through on or around June 22,
2023 at the Defendant's Torrance, California location. Allegedly,
the Defendants implemented a policy and/or practice of rounding
meal period start and end times and/or automatically deducting at
least 30 minutes per shift for meal periods, despite having actual
and/or constructive knowledge that Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees were subject to Defendant's control during purported meal
periods and/or were otherwise not afforded lawful meal periods,
depriving them of all wages owed.
Centinela Feed, Inc. owns and operates warehouses, manufacturing
and/or processing facilities for pet food and supplies production.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Reuschel
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL, as
Executrix of the Estate of LOUISE McGRAW, Deceased, and LORETTA
HOLCOMB, as Executrix of the Estate of CHARLOTTE RODGERS, Deceased,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR
SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order allowing the
confidential information to be maintained under seal.
CSM sought entry of the Protective Order in this case because it
anticipated the discovery in this case would likely include CSM's
confidential and proprietary business information.
On March 24, 2023, Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn entered the
Protective Order in this case.
CSM recognizes that "the common law presumes a right of the public
to inspect and copy all judicial records and documents."
Specifically, CSM requests only the following portions of Exhibit 1
and Exhibit 11 to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be
maintained under seal:
Document Pages Reason to
Seal
Ex. 1, Oct. 3, Page 73 line 6 (the References CSM's
2023 Rule 30(b)(6) two words after confidential and
Corporate "says"); proprietary
business
Representative Page 74 line 16 (the model, which
Deposition of two words after incorporates
policies
Chancellor "assistant"); and procedures
Senior Management, Page 81 line 16 designed to
promote
Ltd. (the two words CSM's competitive
after "assistant"). standing in the
industry
Chancellor is a dynamic company that develops, owns, and operates
properties that provide seniors with housing and health care
options.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46qmuiR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
W. Michael Frazier, Esq.
FRAZIER & OXLEY, L.C.
Huntington, WV 25727
Telephone: (304) 697-4370
- and -
Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
Claire E. F. Eichmann, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT, LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 285-5000
- and -
Avrum Levicoff
Robert L. Hogan, Esq.
THE LEVICOFF LAW FIRM, P.C.
4 PPG Place, Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 434-5200
CHARTER MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay the Minimum Wages, Setliff Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY SETLIFF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Named Plaintiff, v. CHARTER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02255 (N.D. Ohio, November 20, 2023)
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Plaintiff Setliff worked for Defendant as a maintenance technician
from approximately May 9, 2011 until February 1, 2022 in one or
more hourly, non-exempt positions at one of its manufacturing
facilities located in Rising Sung, OH. Throughout his employment,
Setliff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, but the
Defendant did not fully and properly pay him and the Putative class
members in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA and
Ohio law for all of their compensable hours worked due to its
company-wide policies/practices, says the suit.
Headquartered in Mequon, WI, Charter manufactures, processes, and
ships bar, rod, wire products, and steel coils for automotive and
industrial equipment markets across the continental United States
and supplies such products globally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
Toledo, OH 43606
Telephone: (419) 824-4439
Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
CLOROX COMPANY: Class Settlement in Swetz Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryan Swetz, v. The Clorox
Company, Case No. 7:22-cv-09374-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Philip M. Halpern entered an order granting preliminary approval of
class action settlement.
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as within
the range of possible final approval, and as meriting submission to
the Settlement Class for its consideration.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are
(1) the Honorable Judge Philip M. Halpern;
(2) any member of his immediate family;
(3) Defendant;
(4) any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest;
(5) any of Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and
officers, directors, employees, legal representatives,
heirs,
successors, or assigns; and
(6) any persons who timely exclude themselves from the
Settlement
Class.
The Court conditionally designates Jason P. Sultzer of The Sultzer
Law Group, P.C., Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedrin & Berman,
Jeffrey Brown of Leeds Brown of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. and Stephen
J. Fearon, Jr. of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class Counsel the
Settlement Class Counsel for purposes of this settlement.
The Court conditionals designates Plaintiffs Bryan Swetz, Michael
Charles, Olivia Kossel, Tina Donohue, and Alyce Lacey as Class
Representatives for the purposes of this settlement.
The Court preliminarily finds that the Class Representatives and
Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected
the interests of the absent Settlement Class Members.
A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on May 22,
2024.
Clorox is an American global manufacturer and marketer of consumer
and professional products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3urUb6y at no extra charge.[CC]
COMMUNITY MOBILE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Rendon et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------
Marco Rendon; Ashley Salkey; Javonna Jenkins; Michael Tucker;
Anthony Castillo; Shariff Jamison; Malachi Whyte; Brandon Serrano;
and Earon Toliver, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Community Mobile Testing, Inc.; and LabQ
Clinical Diagnostics LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08631
(E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2023) seeks redress for the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the New York Code of
Rules and Regulations.
One of the Plaintiffs, Marco Rendon, was employed by Defendants as
a Covid-19 tester, driver, and supervisor from approximately
November 2020 to May 2021, and then from approximately August 2021
to June 2022. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff Rendon, along
with other Plaintiffs, was paid on a biweekly basis. In addition,
he also did not received overtime compensation for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit.
Community Mobile Testing, Inc. operates COVID-19 testing locations
in New York and brick-and-mortar laboratory facilities in at least
two locations in the state. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, 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 in
April 2023, three separate putative class actions were consolidated
under the caption "In re Continental Resources, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation," Case No. CJ-2022-4162, in the District Court of
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
In the Consolidated Action, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated former shareholders of the
company, allege that its founder, Mr. Harold G. Hamm, certain
trusts established for the benefit of Mr. Hamm and/or his family
members, and the company's other directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the take-private transaction and seek
monetary damages, the costs and expenses associated with the
lawsuits and other equitable relief.
Continental Resources, Inc. is into the exploration, development,
management, and production of crude oil and natural gas and
associated products with properties primarily located in four
leading basins in the United States – the Bakken field of North
Dakota and Montana, the Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma, the Permian
Basin of Texas, and the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.
CORSAIR GAMING: Must Oppose McKinney Class Cert Bid by Dec. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, and
CLINT SUNDEEN, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-00312-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order extending the Defendant's deadline to file opposition to
motion for class certification and related case deadlines:
Case event Current Date New Date
Defendant files opposition to Dec. 1, 2023 Dec. 8,
2023
class certification motion
Plaintiffs file reply to class Jan. 25, 2024 Feb. 1,
2024
certification
Fact discovery cutoff Jan. 25, 2024 Feb. 1,
2024
Parties file Daubert motions Jan. 25, 2024 Feb. 1,
2024
Parties file Daubert oppositions Feb. 8, 2024 Feb. 15,
2024
Parties file Daubert replies Feb. 15, 2024 Feb. 22,
2024
Hearing on motion for class Mar. 8, 2024 Mar. 14,
2024
certification and Daubert motions or as set by or as set
by
the Court the Court
Deadline to complete mediation Apr. 29, 2024 May 6,
2024
Corsair is an American computer peripherals and hardware company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uG9p7M at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rick Lyon, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas Jacobsen, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
- and -
Kevin Kneupper, Esq
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq
KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
4475 Peachtree Lakes Dr
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096
Telephone: (657) 845-3100
The Defendant is represented by:
Terence N. Hawley, Esq.
Emily F. Lynch, Esq.
Mariah K. Fairley, Esq.
Quynh La, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: (415) 543-8700
Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
E-mail: thawley@reedsmith.com
elynch@reedsmith.com
mfairley@reedsmith.com
qla@reedsmith.com
DONOTPAY INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Illegal Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Laus, writing for JDJournal, reports that in a recent legal
development, a federal judge in Illinois has ruled against a small
law firm's attempt to file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all
U.S. firms against the "robot lawyer" service, DoNotPay. Chief U.S.
District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the Southern District of
Illinois delivered the ruling on November 17, as reported by
Reuters and Law360.
Lack Of Standing Cited In Dismissal
Judge Rosenstengel determined that Illinois-based firm MillerKing
did not have standing to pursue the class action lawsuit. The
primary reason cited was MillerKing's failure to sufficiently
allege that it suffered harm, such as the loss of clients or damage
to its reputation, due to the success of DoNotPay.
In her ruling, Rosenstengel stated, "The court will not infer that
MK has suffered harm through lost clients just because DNP has
gained them," employing initials to reference MillerKing and
DoNotPay.
Allegations And Claims
MillerKing, positioning itself as a direct competitor of DoNotPay,
argued that it suffered harm when DoNotPay created a misleading
impression of affiliation with licensed attorneys. The law firm
alleged false advertising, deceptive trade practices, and the
unauthorized practice of law by DoNotPay, an online subscription
service that employs artificial intelligence to offer legal
services without holding a license to practice law.
Opportunity To Amend Complaint
Despite dismissing the case, Judge Rosenstengel allowed MillerKing
to file an amended complaint. The firm has the chance to address
the lack of particularized harm alleged in the initial filing.
DoNotPay CEO's Response
Joshua Browder, the CEO of DoNotPay, expressed his satisfaction
with dismissing the lawsuit. In a statement to Reuters, Browder
said, "It's proven what we believed from the very beginning: That
there was no concrete harm." Browder, recognized as a 2017 ABA
Journal Legal Rebel, remains optimistic about DoNotPay's trajectory
in legal standing.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
While the Illinois lawsuit has been dismissed, DoNotPay faces
another legal challenge in California. A pending lawsuit in the
state alleges that DoNotPay violated California's unfair
competition law by presenting itself as a lawyer to residents and
selling legal services without a proper law license. The plaintiff
in this case is a dissatisfied customer who raised concerns about
DoNotPay's services. [GN]
EAH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suarez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
WENDY SUAREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all otheraggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. EAH INC., a California nonprofit
corporation and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV28439 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 20, 2023)
seeks for recovery of civil penalties under the California Labor
Code.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a resident manager from
approximately October 2019 until approximately July 2023. During
Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees were required to respond to resident
emergencies 24 hours per day, but Defendants failed to compensate
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees for all time spent
carrying out assigned duties. Among other things, the Defendants
also failed to properly calculate Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees overtime rates of pay due to their receipt of
non-discretionary bonuses, lodging credits, and/or other forms of
pay not excludable as a matter of law when calculating an
employee's regular rate, the suit says.
Headquartered in California, EAH Inc. offers housing development
and management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Joel M. Gordon, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
jgordon@haineslawgroup.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Faces Louis Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Enzo Biochem, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2023, that it facing case captioned
"Louis v. Enzo Biochem, Inc. et al.," Index No. 653281/2023 (N.Y.
Sup.), a putative class action pending in state court alleging
various harms stemming from a ransomware attack in April 2023 that
impacted certain critical information technology systems of the
company.
The complaint seeks to certify a class of New York citizens. The
complaint brings claims of for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of duty, breach of implied contract, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of New
York's Deceptive Acts and Practices.
Enzo Biochem, Inc., a pioneer in molecular diagnostics, offers a
comprehensive portfolio of technical platforms and reagent sets
supporting a diverse range of biomedical research and translational
science needs. It manufactures a comprehensive portfolio of
antibodies, genomic probes, assays, biochemicals and proteins.
ENZO BIOCHEM: Faces Sgambati Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Enzo Biochem, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended July 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2023, that it facing case captioned
"Maria Sgambati et al., v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al.," Index No.
619511/2023 (N.Y. Sup.), a putative class action alleging various
harms stemming from a ransomware attack in April 2023 that impacted
certain critical information technology systems of the company.
The complaint seeks to certify a class of New York residents. The
complaint brings claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing, breach of duty,
breach of implied contract and violations of New York's Deceptive
Acts and Practices.
Enzo Biochem, Inc., a pioneer in molecular diagnostics, offers a
comprehensive portfolio of technical platforms and reagent sets
supporting a diverse range of biomedical research and translational
science needs. It manufactures a comprehensive portfolio of
antibodies, genomic probes, assays, biochemicals and proteins.
EXPEDIA GROUP: Huber Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 29, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE HUBER, v. EXPEDIA
GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-03570-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Paul S. Diamond entered an order amending scheduling order as
follows:
1. A trial for the above-captioned case shall be held on
November
18, 2024.
2. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for November 11,
2024,
at 10:00 a.m. in Room 14614, United States District Court,
601
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
3. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification on or before
January 29, 2024.
4. The Defendant shall respond on or before February 20, 2024.
5. The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification on February 27, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.
6. The Parties shall propound all merits-related interrogatories
and requests for document production no later than March 21,
2024.
7. The Parties shall respond to all written discovery requests
no
later than April 18, 2024.
8. All merits-related fact discovery shall proceed and continue
in
such manner as will assure that all requests for, and
responses
to, discovery will be noticed, served, and completed no later
than May 19, 2024.
9. The Parties shall file their expert reports, and related
disclosures by June 17, 2024, together with copies of all
materials considered by any such expert(s). The Parties shall
file their rebuttal expert reports, and all related
disclosures,
by July 15, 2024, together with copies of all materials
considered by any such rebuttal expert(s).
10. Any summary judgment motion or other dispositive motion,
together with supporting brief, shall be filed on or before
August 12, 2024.
11. Responses shall be filed on or before September 9, 2024.
12. Plaintiff shall propose stipulated facts and submit those
proposed stipulated facts to Defendant on or before October
10,
2024.
13. The Defendant shall state agreement or disagreement with each
of
Plaintiff’s proposed stipulated facts and may
counter-propose
stipulated facts on or before October 14, 2024.
14. The Plaintiff is obligated to respond on or before October
17,
2024.
Expedia is an American travel technology company that owns and
operates travel fare aggregators and travel metasearch engines.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40OXnFn at no extra charge.[CC]
FERRARI NORTH: Class Action Over Brake Failure Revived
------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Ferrari brake failure class action lawsuit that was dismissed is up
and running after the owner of a Ferrari 488 owner said his car
suffered brake failure and finally stopped in a pond.
In June 2021, Missouri plaintiff Jeffrey Rose was driving his 2018
Ferrari 488 GTB when a low brake fluid warning appeared, telling
Rose to drive slowly to a Ferrari dealer.
Instead, he drove home but the brakes allegedly failed as the car
traveled toward a pond. The plaintiff says he jumped from the
Ferrari before it plunged into a pond.
With the Ferrari 488 GTB totaled by the insurance company, the
plaintiff purchased a used 2018 Ferrari 488 GTB that allegedly also
suffered brake failure as the brake pedal went to the floor.
The car was towed and repaired.
But in October 2021, the plaintiff was notified about a Ferrari
brake failure recall to repair brake fluid leaks. In addition to
free repairs, Ferrari owners were offered reimbursements for past
expenses related to brake fluid leaks or failures.
The plaintiff filed the Ferrari class action lawsuit which alleges
these vehicles are defective.
-- 2010-2015 Ferrari 458 Italia
-- 2014-2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale
-- 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale A
-- 2012-2015 Ferrari 458 Spider
-- 2016-2019 Ferrari 488 GTB
-- 2016-2019 Ferrari 488 Spider
According to the Ferrari class action lawsuit, the automaker and
supplier Bosch allegedly knew the brakes were defective as early as
2015.
Though the Ferrari brake failure lawsuit was dismissed, the judge
allowed the plaintiff to change and refile the class action which
is working its way through the court system.
Ferrari argues the recall and reimbursement program took care of
any possible brake problems, but the judge found the plaintiffs
make allegations not covered by the brake recall.
The Ferrari brake failure class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark
Division: Rose, et al., vs. Ferrari North America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, P.C., Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, and Burger Law
LLC.
CarComplaints.com has complaints about Ferrari cars. [GN]
FLINT WATER: Class Settlement in Waid Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Waid, et al., v. Snyder,
et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Judith E. Levy entered an order granting class Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of class settlement with the LAN
Defendants.
The LAN Settlement builds on that one, proposing to add $8 million
to the $626.5 million that have already been secured for tens of
thousands of people impacted by the Flint Water Crisis.
The Plaintiffs are thousands of Flint residents, property owners,
and
business owners who allege professional negligence claims against
LAN
for its work during the Flint Water Crisis. Individual Plaintiffs
and
members of a certified Issues Class allege that LAN's professional
negligence contributed to the Crisis, which injured Plaintiffs and
damaged their property and commercial interests.
The LAN Settlement Class and Subclasses are defined as follows:
-- Settlement Class:
"All persons or entities who are or could be claiming personal
injury, property damage, business economic loss, unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, or seeking any other type of
damage or relief because at any time during the Exposure
Period[,
April 25, 2014 through November 16, 2020,] they: (1) were an
Adult
who owned or lived in a residence that received water from the
Flint Water Treatment Plant or were legally liable for the
payment
of such water; (2) owned or operated a business including
income
earning real property and any other businesses, that received
water from the Flint Water Treatment Plant or were legally
liable for the payment for such water; or (3) were an Adult
during the Exposure Period and who ingested or came into
contact with water received from the Flint Water Treatment
Plant."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Defendants; (2)
the judicial officers to whom this case is assigned in the
Federal Court, Genesee County Circuit Court, and Court of
Claims, their staff, and the members of their immediate
families; (3) all Individual Plaintiffs; and (4) all persons
who
timely and validly elect to opt-out of the Settlement Class.
Adult Exposure Subclass: all persons who were Adults
during the Exposure Period and who ingested or came into
contact with water received from the Flint Water Treatment
Plant at any time during the Exposure Period and who are
claiming or could claim a resulting personal injury.
-- Business Economic Loss Subclass:
"All individuals or entities who owned or operated a business,
including income earning real property and any other
businesses,
that received water from the Flint Water Treatment Plant at any
time during the Exposure Period and who are claiming or could
claim a resulting business economic loss."
Excluded from the Business Economic Loss Subclass are all
local,
state, or federal government offices or entities and any
individual or entity listed on Exhibit 1 to the [ASA].
-- Property Damage Subclass:
"All Adults or entities who owned or were the lessee of
residential real property that received water from the Flint
Water
Treatment Plant, or were legally liable for the payment for
such
water, at any time during the Exposure Period."
Excluded from the Property Damage Subclass are all local,
state,
or federal government entities which own real property and any
individual or entity listed on Exhibit 1 to the [ASA].
The LSA is preliminarily approved under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 as within the range of possible final approval.
The Settlement Allocation and plan of distribution are
preliminarily
approved.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni &
Rivers, PC, and the Executive Committee are appointed as Class
Counsel
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) to represent the LAN
Settlement Class and Subclasses.
The Settlement Class and Subclasses certified in the ASA that was
approved by this Court on November 10, 2021, are conditionally
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and
(e) for purposes of the LAN Settlement.
The following individuals are re-appointed as Class Representatives
for purposes of the LAN Settlement:
a. Rhonda Kelso, Barbara and Darrell Davis, Tiantha Williams,
and
Michael Snyder as personal representative of the Estate of
John
Snyder, as representatives of the Adult Exposure Subclass;
b. Elnora Carthan and David Munoz as representatives of the
Property Damage Subclass; and
c. 635 South Saginaw LLC, Frances Gilcreast, and Neil Helmkay as
representatives of the Business Economic Loss Subclass.
The following individuals are re-appointed as Settlement Subclass
Counsel for purposes of the LAN Settlement:
a. Vincent J. Ward of The Ward Law Firm as counsel for the Adult
Exposure Settlement Subclass;
b. Sarah R. London of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
as counsel for the Property Damage Settlement Subclass; and
c. Dennis C. Reich of Reich & Binstock, LLP as counsel for the
Business Economic Loss Settlement Subclass.
The plan of notice presented in the Declaration in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion is approved.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47ObA7A at no
extra charge.[CC]
FOUNDATION ENERGY: Final Approval of Settlement in Ritter Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen Lane Ritter, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Foundation
Energy Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00246-JFH (E.D.
Okla.), the Class Representative requests that the Court enter the
proposed Judgment as follows:
(1) Final certification of the Settlement Classes;
(2) Final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement
Classes;
and
(3) Final approval of the Notice to Class Members.
The Court already certified the following Settlement Classes:
Class I
"All non-excluded persons or entities who, within the Claim
Period: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from
Foundation
Energy Management, LLC (or Foundation Energy Management,
LLC’s
designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells or
whose
proceeds were sent as unclaimed property to a government
entity
by Foundation Energy Management, LLC; and (2) whose proceeds
did
not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Foundation Energy Management,
LLC, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers,
and
directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities
of
the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any
Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian
allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); (4) prior
period
adjustments; and (5) any claims attributable to payments made
by
Foundation Energy Management, LLC to owners in the Cox 24-1H
and
Cox 24-2H wells.
Class II
All non-excluded persons or entities who, within the Claim
Period: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from
Corterra
Energy Operating, LLC (or Corterra Energy Operating, LLC’s
designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from the Oklahoma wells
that
were acquired by Foundation Energy Fund VII-A, L.P., or whose
proceeds from those acquired wells were sent as unclaimed
property to a government entity by Corterra Energy Operating,
LLC; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory
interest required by the PRSA.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Corterra Energy Operating,
LLC,
its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and
directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities
of
the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any
Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian
allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (4) prior
period adjustments.
Foundation Energy is a manager of energy investments for
institutional partners.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sZmskf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and –
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
211 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 293-3029
E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com
skeeter@blsmithlaw.com
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 23
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Generac Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GNRC)
between May 3, 2023 and August 3, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 22, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Generac securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Generac class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20599 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 22, 2024.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the complaint
alleges that on August 2, 2023, Generac held its Q2 2023 earnings
call where President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Aaron P.
Jagfeld revealed lackluster quarterly results, including a $1
billion sales decrease year-over-year and that residential sales
decreased 44%. When explaining that decline, Jagfeld contradicted
his May statements discounting macroeconomic trends. He said, "[the
Company] underperformed our expectations as a result of the shift
in consumer spending patterns," thus admitting the importance of
inflation on consumer spending. Consequently, Jagfeld advised
investors, "this weaker than previously expected demand environment
is expected to persist in the second half of the year, also
contributing to our lower outlooked for residential product sales."
As a result, Generac's share price dropped. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Generac class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20599 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Airbag Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
General Motors airbag class action lawsuit will continue for
California customers after the judge refused to grant GM's motion
to dismiss.
Plaintiffs James Milstead, Arthur Ray and Richard Vargas contend
1999-2018 GM trucks and SUVs in California are equipped with
defective airbag systems.
The class action lawsuit alleges the airbag control units, also
called sensing and diagnosic modules, "prematurely close the time
window to engage airbags and seatbelts in a crash, putting
occupants of the Class Vehicles at serious risk."
Specifically, the software program that controls the module is
calibrated to prevent airbag deployment and seat belt tightening,
"long before the 100 millisecond minimum window reasonably required
by real-world crashes."
The original GM airbag class action lawsuit began in August 2021 as
a nationwide action with three named plaintiffs from California and
69 plaintiffs from other states.
Since then the class action has been dismissed for all affected
vehicles except those in California.
In addition, the lawsuit for California has also been dismissed,
but the judge has allowed the plaintiffs to change and refile their
class action lawsuit three times.
The third amended lawsuit was filed in July 2023, and even though
the judge previously dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiffs
failed to allege a "plausible defect," this time the judge allowed
the lawsuit to move forward.
In its motion to dismiss, GM argued the lawsuit should again be
dismissed because the same arguments as before are set forth in the
third amended lawsuit.
But according to the judge, the plaintiffs changed their definition
of the airbag defect in the third amended lawsuit which means the
lawsuit will move forward.
According to Judge Jon S. Tigar, the third amended version of the
GM airbag lawsuit now alleges 100 milliseconds is the soonest
shutoff point that could be "reasonably safe."
But the California GM vehicles are allegedly defective because
their airbag control units "are programmed with shutoff times less
than 100 milliseconds.
And in the third amended lawsuit, the plaintiffs reference a crash
in which the airbags in a 2009 GM truck did not deploy during a
fatal crash, allegedly due to a programmed shutoff time of less
than 100 milliseconds.
The General Motors class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California: James Milstead, et
al., v. General Motors LLC, et al. [GN]
GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Heiden Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HEIDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, a Delaware
corporation; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2023-01362825-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., November 20,
2023), seeks to recover, among other things, unpaid compensation
arising from the Defendants' failure to provide employees meal and
rest periods as required under California law, unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, and unreimbursed business expenses in violation of
the California Business Code, the California Labor Code, and the
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Property Maintenance
Supervisor in Anaheim, CA from approximately May 6, 2019 to
September 15, 2023. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was
subjected to Defendant's policies and practices of not paying him
all wages earned and due, through methods and schemes which
include, but are not limited to, failing to provide meal periods;
failing to authorize and permit rest breaks; failing to pay minimum
and overtime wages; failing to provide accurate itemized
statements; failing to maintain required records; and failing to
compensate him for necessary expenditures.
Greystar Management provides property and investment management
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Deanna S. Leifer, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
HBT FINANCIAL: Faces Pickett Suit Over Overdraft Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------
HBT Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 3, 2023, that it is facing case
"John Pickett v. Town and Country Bank," where its subsidiary,
Heartland Bank, is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in October 2023, in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County,
Illinois.
The plaintiff, a customer of Town and Country Bank, which
previously merged with the bank, alleged that the bank breached its
contract with the plaintiff by charging overdraft fees for
transactions that were authorized on a positive account balance,
but when settled, settled into a negative balance.
HBT Financial, Inc. is headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois and
is the holding company for Heartland Bank and Trust Company. The
bank provides a comprehensive suite of business, commercial, wealth
management and retail banking products and services to individuals,
businesses, and municipal entities throughout Illinois and Eastern
Iowa.
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Cos. LLLP. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Anderson securities
class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.
Securities Class Action. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its
affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a
putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. The lawsuit originally was brought under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and
the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and
alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client
assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs.
The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.
On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice.
On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which eliminated certain defendants, withdrew the Securities Act
claims, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as
amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional
state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified
allegations.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on
November 12, 2019, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss all other claims.
The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain
of their state law claims on jurisdictional grounds but did not
appeal the dismissal of the remaining claims.
On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's dismissal of those state law claims.
After further appellate proceedings in the Ninth Circuit,
defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court, which was denied on January 18, 2022.
On February 2, 2022, the defendants filed a renewed motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.
On May 9, 2022, the court dismissed the second amended complaint
without prejudice.
On May 31, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
alleging a single claim of breach of fiduciary duty under Missouri
and California law against a single defendant, Edward Jones, which
Edward Jones moved to dismiss on June 21, 2022.
The district court denied the motion to dismiss in an order filed
on October 26, 2022.
Edward Jones filed its answer to the third amended complaint on
November 14, 2022.
On September 22, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.
On the same date, Edward Jones moved for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' individual claims and to dismiss the third amended
complaint on jurisdictional grounds.
Edward Jones denies the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to
continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Dixon Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Cos. LLLP. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Dixon gender and race
discrimination class suit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
Gender and Race Discrimination Class Action. On March 9, 2022,
Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit (Dixon,
et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The lawsuit was brought by a current financial advisor as a
putative collective action alleging gender discrimination under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and by a former financial advisor as a
putative class action alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981.
On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
reasserting the original claims with modified allegations and
adding claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
alleging race/national origin, gender, and sexual orientation
discrimination on behalf of putative classes of financial advisors.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2022, and on
September 15, 2022, the court stayed further proceedings in the
case pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.
On March 31, 2023, the district court denied the motion to dismiss
and lifted the stay of proceedings.
Edward Jones and JFC filed an answer to the amended complaint on
April 17, 2023.
Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Zigler Home Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Cos. LLLP. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Zigler Home Office
gender discrimination class suit in the Northern District of
Illinois.
Home Office Gender Discrimination Class Action. Edward Jones and
JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by a former
employee (Zigler v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al.) in the
Northern District of Illinois.
The initial complaint filed on September 1, 2022 alleged putative
class and collective claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963
("EPA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Illinois
state laws of gender-based wage discrimination against a subset of
female home office associates whom the plaintiff described as "home
office financial advisor[s]."
The plaintiff amended the complaint on November 29, 2022, seeking
to expand the putative collective and class definitions to include
all female home office associates in any role. Edward Jones and JFC
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 6, 2023.
On June 9, 2023, the district court granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss, narrowing the plaintiff's
EPA claim and related state-law claim to one of her roles at the
company, limiting the plaintiff's Title VII claim and related
state-law claim to a disparate treatment theory of liability as
opposed to a disparate impact theory, and accepting the plaintiff's
agreement to dismiss JFC from the case without prejudice.
Edward Jones filed its answer to the amended complaint on June 23,
2023.
Edward Jones denies the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment
management company. The Company offers wealth management,
retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada.
[BN]
KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Flaherty Bid for Class Status Tossed as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY FLAHERTY, et al., v.
KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., Case No. (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon
L. Gleason entered an order that:
-- Granting AGS's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs'
"Closed
Campus" Claims;
-- Denying as moot AGS's motion to certify a question to the
Alaska
Supreme Court and to stay proceedings;
-- Denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a Rule
23
Class Action; and
-- Denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
Action.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly. The
Court grants AGS's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs'
AWHA claim.
Remaining before the Court are AGS's Motion to Certify a Question
to the Alaska Supreme Court and to Stay Proceedings, Plaintiffs'
Motion for Certification of a Rule 23 Class Action, and Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification of a FLSA Collective Action.
The lawsuit arises from certain policies that AGS put into place in
April 2020 to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
AGS is a seafood processing company that purchases fresh salmon
from independent fisherman and processes it to produce canned,
fresh, and frozen salmon. AGS operates two seasonal fish processing
plants in Naknek and Ketchikan, Alaska. AGS also operates a
seasonal fish camp in Egegik, Alaska.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3urOeX3 at no extra charge.[CC]
KATMAI TECHNICAL: Bid for Class Cert in Guzman Due May 15, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES GUZMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KATMAI TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01671-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David D.
Leshner entered an scheduling order regulating discovery and class
certification motion
filing deadline.
1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or
to
file additional pleadings must be filed on or before January
3,
2024.
2. All written discovery requests must be served by all parties
by
January 29, 2024.
3. Counsel for the parties must appear for a Status Conference
before the Honorable David D. Leshner on February 14, 2024,
at
2:00 p.m. The Status Conference will be conducted by
videoconference with instructions for appearances to follow.
4. All parties must substantially complete the production of
documents responsive to any other party's document requests
by
February 29, 2024.
5. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all
discovery necessary for Plaintiff’s motion for class
certification must be completed on or before April 15, 2024.
6. Plaintiff Charles Guzman and Defendant Katmai Technical
Services
LLC shall each be treated as one side for purposes of
limitations on written discovery and depositions.
7. Any motion for class certification must be filed by not later
than May 15, 2024.
Katmai provides software engineering services. The Company assists
in data mining and migration of database information.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49RAUeY at no extra charge.[CC]
KURA SUSHI: Amended Ruling in Gowen Suit Awaits Court Signature
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending August 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Gowen labor class
suit amended judgment awaits court signature.
On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee, Brandy Gomes, in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.
On July 9, 2020, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action.
In addition, the first amended class action complaint added new
causes of action alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws including a cause of action brought under the California
Private Attorney General Act.
On August 7, 2020, the Company filed its answer to the first
amended complaint, generally denying the allegations in the
complaint.
In May 2021, a joint stipulation was filed requesting a delay in
the class certification hearing date to March 3, 2022, and a
mediation was scheduled for September 24, 2021.
During the mediation, a settlement was agreed upon in the amount of
$1.75 million.
The Company recorded an accrued liability of $1.78 million,
including an estimated $30 thousand in employer payroll taxes,
related to this settlement within general and administrative
expenses in the statements of operations and comprehensive income
(loss) during the fiscal year ended August 31, 2021.
The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 18,
2022.
In December 2022, pursuant to the court's order granting final
approval of the settlement, the Company deposited $1.78 million
into an account controlled by a settlement administrator for
disbursement to class participants and other parties to the
litigation.
A final report regarding the distribution of settlement funds was
filed on July 6, 2023.
The parties are awaiting the court to sign the amended judgment,
which was filed on August 16, 2023.
Kura Sushi USA is a technology-enabled Japanese restaurant based
in
California.
LEGACY PROPERTIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 29, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roach, et al., v. Legacy
Properties, LLC et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00455 (M.D. Fla., Filed
March 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an endorsed order granting
the Defendants' second unopposed motion to extend expert disclosure
deadline:
-- The Defendants shall have up to and Dec. 30,
2023
including to disclose their expert
reports to the Plaintiff.
-- The deadline for the disclosure of Jan. 16,
2024
rebuttal expert reports is extended to:
-- The discovery deadline is extended to: Feb. 6,
2024
-- The Class Certification Deadline is Feb. 29,
2024
extended to:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Legacy Properties is a land brokerage company.[CC]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Certification Discovery Due Feb. 15, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE
CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL,
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODUM, and CASSANDRA ODUM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, SAFECO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Henry J. Bemporad entered an order that:
a. Deadline to complete class certification Feb. 15,
2024
discovery:
b. Class Certification motion filed no March 25,
2024
later than 30 days after the close
certification discovery:
c. Response opposing class certification no later than 60 days
after the filing of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Liberty offers auto, home, renters, general liabilities, boat,
condos, life, and flood insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QVRrWA at no extra charge.[CC]
LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Boorn Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Light & Wonder Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Boorn class suit in
Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
On September 15, 2022, plaintiff Hannelore Boorn filed a putative
class action against L&W, SciPlay Corporation, and Appchi Media
Ltd. in the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
all persons in Kentucky who, within the past five years, purchased
and allegedly lost $5.00 or more worth of chips, in a 24-hour
period, playing SciPlay's online social casino games.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Kentucky's
"recovery of gambling losses" statute and for unjust enrichment,
and seeks unspecified money damages, the award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
injunctive and/or other declaratory relief.
On October 18, 2022, defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
On October 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily
dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice.
On October 27, 2022, the district court entered an order dismissing
the lawsuit.
On November 17, 2022, the plaintiff filed an arbitration demand
against defendants before the American Arbitration Association,
pursuant to which she seeks declaratory judgments that (1)
SciPlay's online social casino games constitute gambling under
Kentucky law, and (2) SciPlay's terms of service are void under
Kentucky law.
On January 12, 2023, the respondents filed their answering
statement to plaintiff’s arbitration demand.
The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.
It believes that the claims in the arbitration demand are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with
a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying
game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and
table game products and services to licensed gaming entities;
providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual
gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite
of
digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account
management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and
services.
LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Casino Queen Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Light & Wonder Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Casino Queen class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On April 2, 2021, Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Marquette,
Inc. filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W,
Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming,
Inc.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to
create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic
card shufflers sold or leased in the United States.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons
and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card
shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any
predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between
April 1, 2009, and the present.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint
asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiffs' costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.
On June 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint, which the court denied on May 19, 2022.
The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.
It believes that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against them.
Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with
a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying
game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and
table game products and services to licensed gaming entities;
providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual
gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite
of
digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account
management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and
services.
LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Giuliano Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Light & Wonder Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Giuliano class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
On September 4, 2020, Alfred T. Giuliano, as liquidation trustee
for RIH Acquisition NJ, LLC d/b/a The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W,
Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming,
Inc.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to
create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic
card shufflers sold or leased in the United States.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons
and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card
shufflers within the United States from the Defendants, or any
predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between
April 1, 2009, and the present.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint
asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff’s costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.
On September 8, 2020, Rancho’s Club Casino, Inc., d/b/a Magnolia
House Casino filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally
Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts federal
antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of
particular U.S. patents.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used those patents to
create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic
card shufflers sold or leased in the United States.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons
and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card
shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any
predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between
April 1, 2009, and the present.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint
asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.
On October 29, 2020, the trial court consolidated the Giuliano and
Rancho’s Club Casino matters.
On October 30, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a first amended consolidated complaint.
On November 9, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs’ first amended consolidated complaint, and also filed
a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano's
individual claims.
On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants’
motion to compel arbitration; stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit
pending resolution of the arbitral process; and accordingly
dismissed all pending motions without prejudice.
On May 31, 2022, defendants filed a motion to lift the stay of the
lawsuit for the limited purpose of amending the court's May 19,
2022 order to confirm that plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano must
proceed to arbitration on an individual basis rather than a
class-wide basis.
On June 10, 2022, plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the court therefore
denied as moot defendants' motion to lift the stay in an order
entered on March 28, 2023.
The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.
It believes that the claims in the consolidated lawsuit are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with
a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying
game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and
table game products and services to licensed gaming entities;
providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual
gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite
of
digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account
management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and
services.
LIGHT & WONDER: Continues to Defend Tonkawa Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Light & Wonder Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Tonkawa class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
On September 3, 2020, the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a
Bally Gaming, Inc.
On October 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to add Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the Umpqua
Indian Development Corp., d/b/a Seven Feathers Casino as a
plaintiff.
On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to
create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for card
shufflers sold or leased to regulated casinos in the United States.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all regulated
United States casinos directly leasing or purchasing card shufflers
from the defendants on or after April 1, 2009.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, the award of
plaintiff's costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expert fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.
On November 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs’ second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to
compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims.
On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment, seeking a finding that defendants are collaterally
estopped from re-litigating issues litigated in the 2018 litigation
versus Shuffle Tech International Corp., Aces Up Gaming, and
Poydras-Talrick Holdings.
On August 27, 2021, the Nevada district court entered an order
transferring the lawsuit to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.
On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants'
motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' individual claims;
stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit pending resolution of the
arbitral process; and accordingly dismissed all pending motions
without prejudice as moot.
The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.
It believes that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against them.
Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with
a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying
game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and
table game products and services to licensed gaming entities;
providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual
gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite
of
digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account
management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and
services.
LUTHER BURBANK: Faces Siegel Suit Over SEC Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------
Luther Burbank Corporation 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 a case captioned "Martin Siegel v. Lagomarsino, et al.,"
Case No. SCV-272922 (March 24, 2023, Cal. Sup.)
Siegel, a purported Luther Burbank Corporation shareholder, filed
and served said putative class action on behalf of shareholders in
the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma, California and alleges
that the company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duty
by failing to disclose certain internal projections and other
information allegedly underlying the fairness opinion of its
financial adviser, Piper Sandler & Co., in connection with its
pending merger transaction with Washington Federal, Inc.
Following the filing of the company's current report on Form 8-K on
April 10, 2023 containing certain supplemental information
regarding unaudited prospective financial estimates received and
considered by Piper Sandler & Co., Mr. Siegel withdrew his request
for a preliminary injunction to require the company to disclose the
internal projections and other information and to delay its May 4,
2023 shareholders meeting, but reserved the right to seek an award
of attorney's fees and expenses. On May 9, 2023, Siegel and his
counsel filed an amended complaint alleging unjust enrichment and
seeking an award of attorney's fees and expenses and removing their
prior disclosure based claims.
Luther Burbank Corporation is the bank holding company for its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Luther Burbank Savings and the bank's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Burbank Investor Services. The company
also owns Burbank Financial Inc., a real estate investment company
that provides limited loan administrative support to the bank.
MCDONALD'S AUSTRALIA: Clayton Utz Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Morrison, Esq., Greg Williams, Esq., William Atfield, Esq.,
Gabriella Lim, Esq., and Isabella Stubbs, Esq. of Clayton Utz, in
article for Lexology, disclosed that following the abandonment of
the previous Government's proposals to regulate litigation funding,
we are in a period of innovation in class action funding.
Three recent decisions demonstrate the continued evolution of
litigation funding in Australian and confirm the viability of
investing in class actions in the Federal Court of Australia and
the Victorian Supreme Court.
Common Fund Orders in the Federal Court
In 2019, the High Court determined that section 33ZF of the Federal
Court Act does not give the Federal Court the power to make a
common fund order (CFO) at an early stage in a proceeding. In its
decision, the High Court explained that section 33ZF gives the
Federal Court a wide power to make any order that is appropriate or
necessary to do justice in the proceeding. However, consideration
of a CFO at an early stage in the proceeding relates to the
viability of the proceeding, not to ensuring that justice is done
in the proceeding. The making of such a CFO is therefore outside
the scope of section 33ZF.
However, the High Court did not decide whether the Federal Court
has the power to make a CFO at some later stage in the proceeding,
in particular whether such an order could be made when exercising
the power in section 33V to approve settlement. A divergence in
judicial opinion emerged, resulting in uncertainty for parties,
lawyers and litigation funders.
Elliott-Carde v McDonald's Australia Limited [2023] FCAFC 162
Earlier in the year the question of whether the Court has the power
to make a CFO at the time of settlement pursuant to section 33V was
expressly reserved to be determined on an expedited basis by the
Full Federal Court in McDonald's.
In its recent judgment, the Full Court confirmed that section 33V
does empower the Court to make a CFO when approving settlement. The
Full Court said that section 33V gives the Court a wide judicial
discretion to make orders with respect to the distribution of
settlement funds. Settlement CFOs made under section 33V should,
therefore, be contrasted with early-stage CFOs sought under section
33ZF, because the Court is concerned with the justness of the
settlement scheme, rather than the viability of the proceeding.
The Court also said that there is "no reason why the inclusion of a
term of the proposed settlement that could be described as a CFO in
and of itself would be a reason why a settlement must not be
approved by the Court in the exercise of its approval
jurisdiction".
Further, one of the Full Court judges, Justice Lee, said that in
certain circumstances it might be just for the Federal Court to
make a CFO in favour of a solicitor, who has taken on the risk to
obtain the settlement, constituting a sum in addition to legal
costs payable pursuant to a retainer. While this observation of one
judge should not be regarded as a concluded statement of the law,
it points to the possibility that in the future the Federal Court
will seek to make orders which have a similar effect to the
Victorian Group Costs Order when approving Federal Court
settlements.
Greentree v Jaguar Land Rover Australia Pty Ltd (Carriage
Application) [2023] FCA 1209
In Greentree, which was decided shortly after McDonald's, Justice
Lee made further comments about a CFO in favour of a solicitor:
". . . the distribution of monies paid under a settlement to a
third-party to a class action who has acted in such a way to
facilitate the realisation of the fund, and to whom a payment is
"just" within the meaning of s 33V(2) by reference to all the
circumstances, need not necessarily be a commercial funder. What
matters, at least in the context of any settlement fund, is whether
a proposed payment out of the realised fund can be characterised as
being just.
In characterising what might be considered just depending upon all
the circumstances, it is relevant that a settlement CFO can be seen
as being consistent with the notion that a person who benefits from
another's efforts in producing a fund is obliged to provide
appropriate value in return, as is reflected in the underlying
principle that it would be inequitable for the person who has
created or realised a valuable asset, in which others claim an
interest, not to have the costs, expenses and fees incurred in
producing the asset paid out of the fund or property created."
What this means
The Full Court's decision in McDonald's confirms that the Court has
the power to make a CFO when approving settlement pursuant to
section 33V, thereby bringing greater certainty to parties and
litigation funders alike. The Court's decision in Greentree
indicates that the CFO may continue to evolve in a manner that
provides an even more favourable reward to class action plaintiff
firms, similar to contingency fees in Victoria.
However, a significant question remains as to how any law firm
could seek such an order from the Federal Court, consistently with
their professional obligations. In particular, the Legal Profession
Uniform Law prevents a law firm from entering into a cost agreement
in which any portion of its fees is calculated by reference to the
value of any award or settlement recovered in any proceedings. The
Victorian GCO regime is a narrow and specific exception to this
general prohibition.
Contingency fees in the Victorian Supreme Court
Since July 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria has had the power to
permit lawyers representing a lead plaintiff in a class action to
recover a contingency fee by way of a GCO.
Until that time, there was a blanket prohibition on Australian
lawyers charging contingency fees. The development was a major
change to the way in which Australian lawyers operate, and has seen
the Victorian Supreme Court emerge as the class action forum of
choice.
Bogan v The Estate of Peter John Smedley (Deceased) [2023] VSCA 256
(Arrium class action)
The Arrium class action was commenced in the Victorian Supreme
Court in August 2020 on behalf of group members who acquired an
interest in shares in Arrium Limited within the relevant period,
and who are alleged to have suffered loss and damage. It is funded
by a litigation funder whose funding agreement entitles it to a
commission from any award of damages or settlement amount arising
from the litigation in exchange for it covering the costs of the
proceeding.
The conduct giving rise to the Arrium class action took place in
New South Wales, which is also where most of the parties and their
legal advisers are based. However, the plaintiff commenced
proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court because of the power to
make a GCO and made an application for such an order on 2 February
2021.
On 26 February 2021, the fifth defendant sought to have the class
action transferred to the NSW Supreme Court.
The Victorian Supreme Court decided to determine the plaintiff's
application for a GCO before determining the transfer application.
In April 2022, the Court ordered a GCO which entitled the
plaintiff's lawyers to take 40% of the proceeds of the litigation
having regard to: the risks inherent in the complex proceeding, the
plaintiff's submission that the funder would withdraw its support
unless a GCO of 40% or more was obtained, and the absence of any
viable alternative funding option.
The transfer application gave rise to questions as to what weight,
if any, ought to be given to the existence of the GCO, which saw
the Court refer those questions and questions as to the powers of
the NSW Supreme Court in relation to the GCO to the Court of
Appeal.
In making its determination in July 2023, the Victorian Court of
Appeal said that the question of transfer requires an assessment of
what is "in the interests of justice", which includes justice being
done as between the parties and what is in the interests of the
public. While a plaintiff does not get to load the dice in their
favour by selecting a particular jurisdiction, a GCO does not cause
a defendant any particular disadvantage or change the basis on
which the issues in the proceeding are determined. It is in the
public interest for the Victorian Supreme Court to determine bona
fide claims, and the power to order a GCO "is a reflection that
justice in the proceeding can be served by a particular costs
model". Further, the Court of Appeal also said that where a GCO
already exists, it follows that the Court has already determined
that justice would be served by the making of that order.
The Victorian Court of Appeal observed that once transferred, the
relevant law to be applied to the conduct of a proceeding is that
of the transferee court. If transferred, the NSW Supreme Court
would be required to have regard to the steps taken in the
proceeding whilst it was in Victoria, but that does not mean the
powers of NSW Supreme Court can extend to enforcing a GCO. As a
result, the order would fall on 'barren ground' and could not be
enforced or varied by that court.
Ultimately, it was determined that the Arrium class action should
remain in the Victorian Supreme Court and not be transferred. This
was, in part, because the GCO had already been made and the
evidence demonstrated that the funder would withdraw its support if
the GCO was revoked, meaning the proceeding would not continue. In
effect, this tied the proceeding to Victoria.
In addition, putting the GCO to one side, the Victorian Court of
Appeal determined that, while the broader preponderance of factors
suggested that the Supreme Court of NSW was the more appropriate
forum, there was no evidence to suggest that Victoria was an
inconvenient jurisdiction to determine the proceedings.
What this means
The Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal's decision means that
contingency fees (which are available to both lawyers and
litigation funders alike) are limited to proceedings in the Supreme
Court of Victoria until such time as they are introduced in other
courts. As a result, the Victorian Supreme Court will remain an
attractive forum for class action plaintiff firms. despite Justice
Lee's suggestion that a solicitor's CFO may be possible.
Key takeaway
Following the abandonment of the previous Government's proposals to
regulate litigation funding, we are in a period of innovation in
class action funding. The rapid development of models is both a
consequence of, and reason for, the increased popularity of group
proceedings in the country generally. With courts approving record
class action settlements, it is clear that these kinds of
proceedings remain viable investments for plaintiff firms and
third-party litigation funders alike.
When it comes to jurisdictional decisions however, the ability for
the Victorian Supreme Court to order contingency fees benefiting
lawyer or third-party funders at an early stage of the proceeding
offers a degree of certainty that may be more enticing than the
Federal Court's power to make a CFO at settlement.
The fifth defendant has submitted an application to the High Court
of Australia challenging the Victorian Court of Appeal's decision
in relation to "travelling GCOs" on a number of grounds. The High
Court will now consider whether the application ought to be heard.
Separately, in the Federal Court context, Justice Lee's suggestion
that solicitor's CFOs may be available demonstrates the Court's
willingness to ensure that funding options are available for
plaintiffs in circumstances where those options ensure justice is
done, but there remains uncertainty as to how any such order could
operate in practice.
The market certainly remains vibrant. [GN]
MIDAMERICA BASEMENT: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as American Family Insurance
Company a/s/o Patricia Siebenthal v. MidAmerica Basement Systems et
al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01344-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
MidAmerica specializes in foundation repair and basement
waterproofing.
A copy of the Court's standing order dated Nov. 14, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MTdig2 at no
extra charge.[CC]
MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL: Extension of Class Cert Discovery Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAQUAY JACKSON AND DANA
RICE INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS, v. MISSISSIPPI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00697-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the class certification discovery deadline
and the filing deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for the following reasons:
1. The plaintiffs allege that MBHS violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying them overtime for hours
worked over 40 each workweek.
In addition to their individual claims, they intend to ask
the
Court to certify a class of allegedly similarly situated
individuals.
2. The parties have worked together to conduct discovery as the
Court outlined in its Class Certification Scheduling Order
entered on March 30, 2023. This Order also set a class
certification discovery deadline of September 28, 2023, and a
deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion for
certification
of December 8, 2023. The case has not been set for trial.
3. The parties have engaged in extensive written discovery,
which
necessitated an extension of the discovery deadline granted
by
the Court on August 24, 2023.
Mississippi provides behavioral rehabilitation services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RcoDKy at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam H. Gates, Esq.
Spence J. Flatgard, Esq.
Gabrielle Wells, Esq.
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC
The Emporium Building
400 East Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 965-1900
E-mail: agates@watkinseager.com
sflatgard@watkinseager.com
gwells@watkinseager.com
MISTER CAR WASH: To Settle Labor Dispute After Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------
Mister Car Wash, 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 after
undergoing mediation in October 2023, the parties in a purported
class action lawsuit in the Stanislaus County Superior Court,
California, on behalf of all non-exempt employees employed by its
subsidiary Prime Shine LLC reached a consensus to resolve the
lawsuit.
This agreement is contingent upon the formalization through a
written settlement document and subsequent approval from the
California Department of Labor and the court. Should all these
conditions be met, the class action lawsuit will be considered
settled.
On February 14, 2023, a plaintiff filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, California, on
behalf of all non-exempt employees employed by Prime Shine LLC in
California any time between February 14, 2019, and the present,
against Prime Shine, LLC and Does 1–20 inclusive.
Plaintiff alleges eight claims for violations of the California
Labor Code and one claim for violation of the California Business &
Professions Code. On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint to add a claim for penalties pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act and seeks, among other things, an unspecified
amount for unpaid wages, actual, consequential, and incidental
losses, penalties and attorneys' fees and costs.
Mister Car Wash, Inc. is a provider of conveyorized car wash
services. As of September 30, 2023, it operated 462 car washes in
21 states.
MOELIS & COMPANY: Firemen's Fund Files Shareholder Suit in DE Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moelis & Company 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 13, 2023, West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, a
putative Class A stockholder of the company, filed a class action
lawsuit, on behalf of itself and other similarly-situated Class A
stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company.
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that certain provisions
of the Stockholders Agreement between the Company and Partner
Holdings are invalid and unenforceable as a matter of Delaware law.
The plaintiff has also requested attorneys' fees and costs and
expenses.
Moelis & Company and its consolidated subsidiaries is a global
investment bank, incorporated in Delaware.
MOVE INC: Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIESTLEY FAUCETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Case No. 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS (C.D.
Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its
application for Leave to File Under Seal portions of its
Opposition. Disclosure of the Move's sensitive, non-public
commercial information would likely cause substantial competitive
and commercial injuries to Move by revealing competitively
sensitive business strategies and decisions, as well as
commercially valuable information regarding Move's generated
leads.
Move submits this Application for Leave to File Under Seal certain
documents which have been designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential by the parties, or which contain or reference
information so designated. This application is also based on the
information set forth in the Declaration of Robin McGrath in
Support of this Application for Leave to File Under Seal.
Specifically, Move has conditionally filed under seal the documents
listed below.
Document Portions to Be Filed
Under Seal
Portions of Move's Opposition to As highlighted in the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class version filed
herewith
Certification
Portions of the Declaration of David As highlighted in the
Kalat in Support of Move's Opposition version filed
herewith
to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification
Exhibit B to the Declaration of David Entire document
Kalat in Support of Move's Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification
Move operates an online network of Websites for real estate search
in North America.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QQuWSQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael E. Williams, Esq.
Robin McGrath, Esq.
Cristina A. Henriquez, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Telephone: (213)443-3000
Facsimile: (213)443-3100
E-mail: michaelwilliams@quinnemanuel.com
robinmcgrath@quinnemanuel.com
cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com
MOVE INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIESTLEY FAUCETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
MOVE, INC. d/b/a REALTOR.COM, Case No. 2:22-cv-04948-ODW-AS (C.D.
Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion to seal portions of its Opposition, the declarations in
support thereof, and the exhibits attached thereto containing
confidential and proprietary information.
Move is a real estate listing company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SLu30u at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael E. Williams, Esq.
Robin McGrath, Esq.
Cristina A. Henriquez, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: michaelwilliams@quinnemanuel.com
robinmcgrath@quinnemanuel.com
cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com
NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs Want Federal Receiver Appointed
--------------------------------------------------------
Marco Poggio, writing for Law360, reports that plaintiffs in a
decade-long class action challenging brutality by staff at New York
City jails have asked a federal judge to appoint a federal receiver
to take the helm of the troubled city jail system following record
violence at its facilities, attorneys confirmed on Nov. 20.
In a motion filed on Nov. 17 in federal court in Manhattan,
attorneys for the plaintiffs laid out a plan to empower an
independent decision maker to take over the facilities run by the
New York City Department of Correction. The aim is to comply with a
2015 consent decree that sought to stem the violence, but which the
city has struggled to follow.
Under the proposal, the receiver would assume near-total control of
the city's jail system.
According to a proposed order, the receiver would be vested with
all the "all powers necessary" to enforce the decree. That includes
full authority to control and supervise the DOC's day-to-day
operations and the power to enact or change DOC policies, create or
modify positions and negotiate and revise contracts, including
those with labor unions. The receiver would answer only to the
court.
The city would retain its own Corrections Department commissioner,
but that person would only serve in an assisting role throughout
the receivership, which has no set ending date.
The plaintiffs said the appointment of a receiver is necessary
because the risk of harm at city jails is even higher today than it
was in 2015, when the court entered the decree to improve
conditions inside the city's jails.
"Thousands of people incarcerated in DOC facilities have suffered
extreme and intolerable levels of violence and remain in imminent
risk of further harm on a daily basis," the Legal Aid Society of
New York, which represents the plaintiffs alongside civil rights
boutique firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, said in a
statement on Nov. 20.
If she signs off on the proposal, U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor
Swain would then find a person to appoint as a receiver. Should the
parties fail to agree on a candidate, they would each have one
month to submit a nomination for the judge to choose from.
Katherine Haas, a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society's
Prisoners' Rights Project, told Law360 that violence statistics
indicate that the city has lost control of its jails, and that a
power shift is necessary.
"We have to change something and this is the option that's left.
This is what we have to do, because the city has failed for eight
years," she said. "We've allowed them to try everything they can,
and it hasn't worked."
Twenty-eight people have died in DOC custody in 2022 and 2023
alone, more than in over a decade, according to a brief filed
alongside the motion.
On Oct. 5, Manish Kunwar, 27, was found dead at the Rikers Island
jail complex, the city's largest jail, which is notorious for being
rife with violence and has been the focus of yearlong campaigns by
advocates who seek to have it closed down. Kunwar was the ninth
person to die in a city jail this year.
Plaintiffs said in the brief that every indicator of physical harm
-- use of force, stabbings and slashings, fights, serious injuries,
in-custody deaths -- is "demonstrably worse" than in 2016, which
marked one year into the consent decree's implementation.
The current average monthly rate of stabbings and slashings is
almost 250% higher than 2016. Fights occur more frequently.
The number of use-of-force incidents is projected to reach 6,500 at
the end of the year -- 2,000 more than reported in 2016 -- if the
current rate persists. The overall use-of-force rate is more than
twice as high, and the percentage of use-of-force incidents
resulting in serious injuries to incarcerated people and staff has
doubled since then, according to the brief.
Nicholas Paolucci, a spokesman for the city's Law Department,
rebuffed the idea of a receivership in an emailed statement on Nov.
20.
"This administration has made progress in many areas to address the
deeply rooted problems at Rikers that have existed for
generations," Paolucci said. "We are committed to building upon
that work, and we do not believe a receivership is the solution to
fixing the city's jail system."
But Debbie Greenberger, a partner at Emery Celli, said the city has
run out of time.
"The ongoing violence and harm calls for extraordinary measures,
like a receiver, because the status quo violates our clients'
constitutional rights every day," she said.
In 2012, the Legal Aid Society and attorneys with Emery Celli filed
a lawsuit on behalf of 12 people detained in city jails, including
name plaintiff Ralph Nunez, seeking to end what they described as a
pattern of unnecessary and excessive force by guards against them.
The suit, which became a class action in January 2013, sought
damages but also a declaration by the court that the correctional
officers had violated the inmates' rights under the U.S.
Constitution and state law.
Joining the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs in December 2014, the
U.S. government asked the court to intervene to force a change in
DOC practices, saying they violated the constitutional rights of
people ages 16 to 18 held in the jails.
The litigation reached a milestone in October 2015, when Judge
Taylor Swain entered a consent decree ordering the city to take
specific actions to undo a pattern of violence by staff against
incarcerated people and to implement new policies to reduce
violence in the jails overall. Following the decree, the court
appointed a federal monitor to oversee the reforms.
The monitor, which unlike the proposed receiver has no sway over
DOC policies and can only make recommendations, has since issued 50
reports looking at whether and how the city has complied with the
consent judgment. For the most part, those reports found that
conditions at the jails not only haven't improved — they have
gotten worse.
A special report published in July found the city's jail system in
a status of disarray and "patently unsafe." The numbers of
stabbings, slashings, fights and assaults of staff were found to be
exceedingly high, and so were incidents involving excessive use of
force by guards.
And in a report issued in October, the monitor said correctional
officers have continued to use prohibited force techniques such as
head strikes, choke holds, kicks, and body slams "at an extremely
high rate."
The report found that there were 587 incidents involving head
strikes between January 2022 and May 2023 and that dozens of staff
were suspended for use-of-force misconduct in the first five months
of this year.
Under the receivership proposal, the monitor would continue to
perform its functions, including producing its periodic reports on
the efforts made to comply with the decree. The monitor and the
receiver would work independently of each other and wouldn't be
answerable to each other.
The Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, the union
representing the city's correctional line officers, declined to
comment on Nov. 20.
The case is Nunez et al. v. The City of New York et al., case
number 11-cv-05845, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. [GN]
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Jerome Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KERLY JEROME, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-08624-GRB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2023) arises out
of a recent targeted cyberattack and data breach, in which
Northwell, New York's largest healthcare provider, lost control
over more than three million patients' sensitive personal
information. Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of confidence, and for violations of the New
York Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
On May 2, 2023, one of Northwell's third-party vendors became aware
of a cybersecurity incident affecting its systems. After an
investigation, the vendor also concluded that the unauthorized
access to its systems occurred between March 27, 2023 and May 2,
2023, and that unauthorized access to personal health information.
Despite Northwell being notified about the data breach to its
systems in July 2023 and acknowledging that data thieves likely
accessed Plaintiff's and the class members' private information,
Northwell did not begin to notify Plaintiff and class members until
nearly four months later.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of class members' private
information that it collected, and for failing to provide timely
and adequate notice to Plaintiff and class members that their
information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information
was accessed.
Headquartered in New Hyde Park, NY, Northwell Health is a medical
services provider. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6705
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 738-6839
E-mail: JSedgh@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
fburne@forthepeople.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on Nov. 21 disclosed
that, on November 21, 2023, it filed a class action lawsuit against
Defendants Northwell Health, Inc. ("Northwell") and Perry Johnson &
Associates, Inc. ("PJA") (individually, and collectively,
"Defendants"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
secure and safeguard current and former patients' personally
identifiable information ("PII") and failed to provide timely,
accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and Class Members that
their sensitive health information had been compromised in a data
breach, as well as what information was taken.
Beginning on March 23, 2023, an unauthorized third party gained
access to PJA's network. Defendant Northwell learned of PJA's
breach on July 21, 2023, and failed to provide timely notice of the
Data Breach to Plaintiffs and Class Members, violating the
immediate notice requirement of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 899-aa,
and renders Defendants' purported privacy assurances material
misrepresentations in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 349,
350.
Around November 3, 2023, Defendants sent Plaintiffs and Class
Members a Notice of Data Breach, more than seven months after the
start of the Data Breach. Defendants have failed to provide
adequate details about the cause of the Data Breach, the
vulnerabilities hackers and/or cybercriminals exploited, the
unauthorized third party or parties that initiated the
cyber-attack, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure a
breach does not happen again. The Defendants continue to maintain
possession, custody, and control over Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' PII.
The Class the Plaintiffs seek to represent includes all individuals
whose PII was compromised, accessed, or disclosed in the breach
that is the subject of the Notice of Data Breach that Defendants
distributed on or about November 3, 2023 (the "Class"). [GN]
ONTARIO: Class Action Over Abuse in Psych Hospital Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action
lawsuit against the government of Ontario over institutional abuse
in a psychiatric hospital.
In Banman v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 6187, Plaintiffs Ruth Atkin, Martha
Banman, and Louise Bark commenced a class action lawsuit against
the Ontario government. The subject of the proposed class action
was the psychiatric treatment of the class members when they were
patients detained in the forensic psychiatric unit, known as the
Psychosocial Treatment Unit (PST), of the St. Thomas Psychiatric
Hospital between 1976 and 1992.
The plaintiffs alleged that the PST program the class members
underwent was experimental, untested, reckless, negligent,
ineffective, harmful, unethical, and cloaked from disclosure to the
patients. They claimed that the PST program was a cruel and unusual
treatment, utilizing, among other things, illegal seclusion and
illegal restraints, including binding patients to mattresses. The
plaintiffs also alleged that vulnerable female patients were
exposed to harm and were victims of assault and rape while detained
in the PST unit.
The plaintiffs sued the Ontario government, alleging that it is
liable for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, vicarious
liability, breach of non-delegable duty, and breach of Charter
rights. The plaintiffs argued that all of the criteria for
certification were satisfied, including the recently amended
preferable procedure criterion.
The Ontario government argued that the joinder of co-plaintiffs
approach is the preferable procedure. The same approach was used in
Barker v. Barker, a suit against the Ontario government with facts
and allegations similar to the Banman case. The government asserted
that the individuals issued predominate the common issues, and the
co-plaintiff joinder approach would be preferable to the class
action proposed by the plaintiffs.
The Ontario Superior Court noted from jurisprudence that the
preferability analysis requires that it is conducted through the
lens of judicial economy, behaviour modification and access to
justice. Accordingly, for a class proceeding to be the preferable
procedure for resolving the claims of a given class, it must
represent a fair, efficient, and manageable procedure that is
preferable to any alternative method of resolving the claims.
The court also noted that the Class Proceedings Act was amended in
2020, raising the threshold of satisfying the preferable procedure
criterion. The court emphasized that the predominance of common
issues over individual issues and superiority over the alternatives
mean that the proposed class action must be superlative to the
alternatives to satisfy the preferable procedure criterion.
Access to justice
The court explained that the first step in the preferability
analysis is determining whether the design of the class action is
manageable as a class action. The court found that the design of
the proposed class action is simple and manageable. The court noted
that the case is fundamentally a systemic negligence institutional
abuse or malfeasance proposed class action that is completed with
individual issues trials. The court emphasized that more complex
systemic or far more complex institutional abuse or malfeasance
class actions have been certified.
The court noted that access to justice is the prime lens for the
preferable procedure analysis. From an access to justice
perspective, the court noted that the proposed class action and all
alternatives involve individual issues trials. The court said that
in cases where a monetary award is made at the common issues trial,
the proposed class action readily satisfies the criterion of a
predominance of common issues over individual issues of which there
may be none. There is an optimum judicial economy in such cases
because the court determines everything at the common issues trial.
The court also highlighted the broad monetary range of the
patients' claims to be resolved at individual issues trials. The
court noted that the case has a diverse claim demographics of up to
429 claims. Some of those claims alone would not be viable without
a class proceeding. The court said that while not all of the 429
patients of the PST Unit would benefit from a common issues trial,
many would benefit if the plaintiffs were successful at the common
issues trials. The court stressed that a class proceeding is the
only viable means to achieve access to justice for these patients.
Ultimately, the court found that the design of the proposed class
action is manageable, and the common issues predominate over the
individual issues for all, except the patients who have
economically viable assault or sexual assault claims. However, the
court acknowledged that those patients may have reasons not to opt
out of the class proceedings.
Superiority
The next question the court must determine is whether a class
action is superior to the alternatives. The plaintiffs submitted
that a class action is preferable to hundreds of individual claims
advanced on behalf of vulnerable, marginalized, now elderly class
members. Furthermore, the plaintiff's counsel relied on the Barker
v. Barker experience, demonstrating the inferiority of a joinder of
actions compared to a class proceeding. Counsel lamented the
delays, the difficulties, the deficiencies, and the frustrations of
prosecuting the joinder action against the Ontario government.
From an access to justice perspective, the court found that among
the reasons why a class proceeding is the preferable procedure and
superior was because a class action automatically assembles the
class members who may benefit from a common issues trial. Then,
they can opt into individual issues trials if they have
economically viable claims. The court also noted that a class
action secures the class members with legal representation they
might not otherwise obtain, and the class counsel may be unwilling
to take on the risks of a joinder action.
The court concluded that the proposed class action satisfied the
preferable procedure criterion. The court was also satisfied that
the other criteria for certifying a class action had been satisfied
with some qualifications and exceptions noted throughout the
judgment. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs'
certification motion. [GN]
PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Faces Two Suits Over IBIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Paylocity Holding Corporation 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 two putative class actions alleging violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (IBIPA).
On November 16, 2020, the first complaint was filed against the
company with the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that the
company violated the IBIPA. The complaint seeks statutory damages,
attorney's fees and other costs.
On September 11, 2023, a second potential class action complaint
was filed against the company with the Circuit Court of Cook County
that alleges violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act that overlap with claims in the first action.
Paylocity Holding Corporation is a cloud-based provider of human
capital management and payroll software solutions.
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Faces Felipe Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
PLAYSTUDIOS, 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 a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, by a purported company shareholder
on April 6, 2022, in connection with alleged federal securities law
violations is currently ongoing.
Case is captioned "Christian A. Felipe et. al. v. PLAYSTUDIOS,
Inc." On July 15, 2022, the Felipe complaint was transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Southern
Division. On October 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to
the Felipe complaint naming the company, several current and former
board members of the company, board members and officers of Acies
Acquisition Corp., and Andrew Pascal, the company's Chairman and
CEO, as defendants. It alleges misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the state of the company's development of the "Kingdom
Boss" game and its financial projections and future prospects in
the S-4 Registration Statement filed by Acies that was declared
effective on May 25, 2021, the Proxy Statement filed by Acies on
May 25, 2021, and other public statements that touted Old
PLAYSTUDIOS' and the company's financial performance and
operations, including statements made on earnings calls and the
Amended S-1 Registration Statement filed by the company that was
declared effective on July 30, 2021.
Complaint alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions
resulted in stock price drops of 13% on August 12, 2021, and 5% on
February 25, 2022, following (i) the company's release of financial
results for the second quarter of 2021, ended on June 30, 2021, and
(ii) the filing of the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2021 and issuance of a press release
summarizing financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended
December 31, 2021, respectively. Complaint seeks an award of
damages for an unspecified amount.
PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. develops and operates online and mobile social
gaming applications. Its games are free-to-play and available via
the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, Amazon Appstore, and
Facebook. It creates games based on its own original content as
well as third-party licensed brands. The Company generates revenue
through the in-game sale of virtual currency and through
advertising.
PUERTO RICO: Plaintiffs Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA E. CARBONELL;
ROBERTO A. WHATTS OSORIO; ELBA Y. COLON NERY; BILLY NIEVES
HERNANDEZ; NELIDA ALVAREZ FEBUS; LINDA DUMONT GUZMAN; SANDRA
QUIÑONES PINTO; YOMARYS ORTIZ GONZALEZ; CARMEN BERLINGERI PABON;
MERAB ORTIZ RIVERA; JANET CRUZ BERRIOS, individually and as
representatives of the requested class, v. ANTONIO LOPEZ FIGUEROA,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Puerto Rico Police
Bureau; MICHELLE MOURE, in her official capacity as Human Resources
Director of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau; UNION OF ORGANIZED
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, Case No. 3:22-cv-01236-WGY (D.P.R.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting extension of time of 30 days, or until December 18, 2023
to move for class certification.
Puerto Rico Police is a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction
over the entire Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uANPS4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Angel J. Valencia-Gatell, Esq.
Heidi E. Schneider, Esq.
Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK
LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, VA 22160
Telephone: (703) 321-8510
Facsimile: (703) 321-9319
E-mail: ajv@nrtw.org
hes@nrtw.org
mlc@nrtw.org
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Sunderland Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
period ended September 13, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in September 20, 2023, that on September 25,
2023, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed claims against RE/MAX
Ontario-Atlantic Canada Inc. (which was acquired by the company in
July 2021) and on October 25, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the
decision.
On April 9, 2021, a putative class action claim was filed in
against the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB), the
Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA), RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic
Canada Inc., which was acquired by the company in July 2021,
Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership, Royal Lepage Real Estate
Services Ltd., and many other real estate companies, by the
putative representative plaintiff, Mark Sunderland.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired, agreed or
arranged with each other and acted in furtherance of their
conspiracy to fix, maintain, increase, control, raise, or stabilize
the rate of real estate buyers' brokerages' and salespersons'
commissions in respect of the purchase and sale of properties
listed on TRREB's multiple listing service system (MLS) in
violation of the Canadian Competition Act.
On February 24, 2022, plaintiff filed a Fresh as Amended Statement
of Claim. The amended claim alleges franchisor defendants aided and
abetted their respective franchisee brokerages and their
salespeople in violation of the section 45(1) of the Competition
Act. Among other requested relief, the plaintiff seeks damages
against the defendants and injunctive relief.
Remax Holdings is a franchisor in the real estate industry under
the RE/MAX(R) brand and mortgage brokerages in the U.S. under the
Motto(R) Mortgage brand.
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Pierce Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY PIERCE and JANET PIERCE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS,
INC.; RESOLUTION CAPITAL, L.P.; MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C.;
and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01431 (W.D. Tex.,
November 20, 2023) seeks statutory damages, attorney fees, costs,
and all other relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Texas Fair Debt Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the FDCPA and
the TDCPA by engaging in misrepresentations or using deceptive,
coercive, threatening, abusive practices when collecting a debt.
Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a debt collection agency
headquartered in Dallas, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent A. Devere, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRENT A. DEVERE
1411 West Avenue, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 457-8080
Facsimile: (512) 457-8060
E-mail: BDevere@1411west.com
- and -
Amy L.B. Ginsburg, Esq.
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
THOMASSON PLLC
16414 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 700
San Antonio, TX 78232-2272
Telephone: (877) 537-5733
Facsimile: (973) 559-5779
E-mail: Amy@Thomassonpllc.com
Andrew@Thomassonpllc.com
Francis@Thomassonpllc.com
RESCUE DOGS: Donor Files Class Action Over Sham Dog Rescue
----------------------------------------------------------
Wriley Nelson, writing for Country Club Nissan, reports that animal
rescue donor Arlene Dean, of Ulster County, filed a Class Action
Federal RICO and Charity Fraud lawsuit in the Northern District of
New York against Rescue Dogs Rescue Soldiers and related persons
and entities of Cherry Valley on Thursday, November 2. The
complaint alleges that the respondents organized to defraud a large
number of animal-welfare donors of hundreds of thousands of dollars
with a sham dog rescue and that they used the donations for the
personal benefit of the board and their friends, including amassing
a million-dollar real estate portfolio for founder Elizabeth
Keller.
Rescue Dogs is a partner of the New York City Animal Care and
Control shelter that receives stray dogs in Cherry Valley to train
them as companions for disabled war veterans. It is a charity
registered with the New York State Department of Corporations and
uses a website and Facebook pages to solicit donations.
"Donors in New York and nationwide made hopeful investments of
hundreds of thousands of dollars for years believing the dogs
received great care at a sanctuary and trained for soldiers to
adopt, but there is no care, no sanctuary and no soldiers—just a
living hell for the dogs that violates consumer fraud and state
charity laws that should end this sham," said Susan Chana Lask, a
well-known animal rights attorney and advocate who represents
Dean.
Otsego County Sheriff's Deputy Jacob Smith responded to an animal
complaint at one of the charity's facilities in August. Executive
Director Stacie Haynes of the Susquehanna Society for the
Prevention of Animals told the Sheriff's Office, "I am afraid of
what we might find," at the time of the complaint.
Smith reported that he was "overwhelmed by the smell of
ammonia/cleaner/urine" and noted 10 dogs, one of whom appeared
underweight, in a barn. Smith then asked to see another one of the
shelter properties and Keller initially wanted to delay the visit
by a day or two. At that property, Smith found "multiple dogs
outside in their own shelters" and "multiple dogs" in a barn.
"Three dogs in the middle of the barn were living in really poor
conditions as [the] housing area was covered in feces," the report
reads. "The dogs appeared to be healthy besides their housing
conditions." Fifty-four dogs, three donkeys and a number of cats
were found at the location. Smith told Keller that the living
conditions needed to improve and that she could face criminal
charges. A follow-up visit by Deputy E. Lincoln found improved
conditions and that each dog had access to food and water, but
noted that none of the dogs were licensed or had proof of
vaccination. The Sheriff's Office closed the investigation on
Saturday, September 9.
Lask posted a collection of graphic photos from the sites as well
as a collection of witness statements as part of the complaint;
they may be found at https://bit.ly/49ooeMb. The case number is #
23-01370, for more information.
"No donor paid for these deplorable conditions and abuse, and this
is no sanctuary," Lask said. "These dogs remain unlicensed and
unvaccinated.
"Many of the rescue's dogs are housed at Mossy Creek Kennel, which
is a for-profit business. The website still lists the former
owners, who had an excellent reputation in the area," Lask said.
According to Otsego County property records, the Mossy Creek
property was sold to El-Liza's Dog House Inc. by owner Kurt
Schafsteck in July 2020. As of Friday, November 3, the "about us"
page of the kennel website read, "Owners Ramona and Kurt Schafsteck
live on the premises so your pet is never far from immediate
attention, day or night."
The complaint seeks accountability for RDRS and El-Liza's Dog
House, named as a conspirator, and to hold board members personally
liable, restitution of funds to donors, and to shut down the "sham
charity and protect the dogs by removing them to a safe rescue."
Keller and other respondents denied the accusations and several
refused to comment.
"We've never been sued before, but the truth will come out," Keller
said when asked for comment. "[Lask] definitely has an agenda and
our dogs are much loved and cared for. Our side is going to prevail
and we aim to release a more complete statement soon." [GN]
ROBERT PACE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE RAYMOND DAISS,
III, v. ROBERT S.D. PACE, Case No. 4:22-cv-00236-RSB-CLR (S.D.
Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the
Plaintiff will have up to and including December 13, 2023 to file
his Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MZam1x at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathryn S. Whitlock, Esq.
MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC
270 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 1800
Atlanta, GA 30343
Telephone: (678) 500-7307
E-mail: kate.whitlock@mgclaw.com
- and -
Kathryn S. Whitlock, Esq.
Kelli K. Steele, Esq.
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN, LLP
1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 925
Atlanta, GA 30309
E-mail: kwhitlock@wshblaw.com
ksteele@wshblaw.com
- and -
Sherwin P. Robin, Esq.
JONES ROBIN& ROBIN, P.C.
Metter, GA 30439
E-mail: sprobin@collectionsga.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christine L. Mast, Esq.
HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP
303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4000
Atlanta, GA 30308-3243
Telephone: (404) 614-7400
Facsimile: (855) 889-4588
E-mail: cmast@hpylaw.com
SC HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 8
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 20
disclosed that purchasers of SC Health Corporation ("SC Health")
(NYSE: SCPE; NYSE: SCPE.WS; NYSE: SCPE.U) and Rockley Photonics
Holdings Limited ("Rockley") (NYSE:RKLY)(NYSE:RKLY.WS) securities
between March 19, 2021 and January 23, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and purchasers directly in the March 2021 private
investment in public equity of Rockley shares (the "PIPE Offering")
conducted in connection with the merger of SC Health and Rockley
(the "Merger") have until January 8, 2024 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff of the Rockley class action lawsuit. Captioned
Grossman v. Sin, et al., No. 23-cv-9501 (C.D. Cal.), the Rockley
class action lawsuit charges SC Health Holdings Limited, SC Health
Group Limited, SIN Capital Group Pte. Ltd. as well as certain of SC
Health, SIN Capital Group Pte. Ltd., and Rockley's top executive
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Rockley class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-rockley-photonics-holdings-limited-and-sc-health-corporation-class-action-lawsuit.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchezof Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Rockley specializes in the research and
development of integrated silicon photonics chipsets and modules
for sensory and communications products. SC Health was a special
purpose acquisition company - commonly known as a "SPAC" or
"blank-check company."
The Rockley class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Rockley's joint venture agreement ("JV
Agreement") with Hengtong Rockley Technology Co., Ltd. was in
jeopardy because Jiangsu Hengtong Optic-Electric Co., Ltd.
("Hengtong"), Rockley's joint venture partner, had acquired a
majority interest in a company, Huawei Marine Networks Co., Ltd.
("Huawei Marine") (later renamed HMN Tech), on the banned entities
list maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security of the
U.S. Department of Commerce since 2019; (ii) the JV Agreement was
in further jeopardy because in February 2021 the World Bank had
invalidated a bid by Huawei Marine to build an undersea optical
cable based on security concerns raised by the United States and
other countries that China could use the infrastructure to spy on
communications; (iii) the materially undisclosed risk that the JV
Agreement could fail as a result of Hengtong's acquisition of a
majority interest in HMN Tech jeopardized Rockley's joint venture
revenues, launch schedule, business prospects, and ultimately
Rockley's solvency; (iv) Rockley did not have the customer base or
customer commitments that defendants had represented to investors;
and (v) Rockley did not have sufficient customer orders to allow it
to develop and commercialize products, maintain and expand client
relationships, reach cash flow break-even, or stave off bankruptcy
following the Merger.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased SC Health and
Rockley securities during the Class Period and purchasers directly
in the PIPE Offering conducted in connection with the Merger to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Rockley class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Rockley class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Rockley class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Rockley class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.
Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS
Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more
than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 - the third year in a row
Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those three years alone,
Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
SHELL PLC: Nigerian Fishermen Can Pursue Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
William Farrington, writing for Proactive Investors, reports that
the UK High Court has ruled that Nigerian fishermen can pursue
landmark human rights claims against Shell PLC (LSE:SHEL,
NYSE:SHEL) relating to the alleged breach of the right to a clean
environment under Nigerian constitutional law.
Following the court's decision, 13,000 fishermen from the Ogale and
Bille communities in the Niger Delta are one step closer to
proceeding with the lawsuit, which is being handled by Leigh Day.
Leigh Day's statement on Nov. 23 noted extensive environmental
damage caused by oil pollution in the region. The judge, in this
case, refused to dismiss the claims, describing the pollution in
the Niger Delta as "catastrophically environmentally damaging".
"This ruling is a significant moment in the eight-year battle by
the Ogale and Bille communities to get Shell to take responsibility
for the oil pollution that has blighted their land," commented
Leigh Day partner Matthew Renshaw. "During this time, Shell has
repeatedly resorted to using technicalities to try to block and
delay our clients' claims."
Shell, however, countered that the claimants have not pinpointed
the specific oil spills responsible for their damages, emphasising
the prevalence of oil theft and criminality in the Niger Delta as
major pollution contributors.
"Oil is being stolen on an industrial scale in the Niger Delta,"
Shell said. "This criminality is a major source of pollution and is
the cause of the majority of spills in the Bille and Ogale
claims."
This High Court decision contrasts with a UK Supreme Court earlier
this year that dismissed claims against Shell over the 2011 Bonga
oil leak, one of the largest spills in the Nigerian region's
history.
The spill, which released 40,000 barrels of crude oil, was termed
an "environmental catastrophe" by nearly 28,000 Nigerian
plaintiffs, who sought to hold Shell accountable for the extensive
damage and billions of dollars in losses. [GN]
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Hoesch Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE HOESCH, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-021398 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
November 20, 2023) arises from the Defendant's misclassification of
Plaintiff as overtime-wage exempt employees while in training in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek for
Defendant's benefit during her employment as sales representative
while in training. However, pursuant to the Defendant's policy,
Plaintiff was not paid proper compensation for all hours worked,
says the suit.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries is the fourth largest specialty
generic biopharmaceutical company in the world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
SYMRISE INC: Faces Class Action Over 2022 Chemical Explosion
------------------------------------------------------------
Randi Love, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that residents who
were allegedly affected by a 2022 chemical explosion in Brunswick,
Ga., dismissed their lawsuit against Symrise Inc.
The residents sued Symrise and Vincent Noble, a plant maintenance
supervisor, for depriving them of the use and enjoyment of their
dwellings, a US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
March order recounted. The residents, who had been seeking to
represent a proposed class of plaintiffs, filed a motion for leave
to voluntarily dismiss their suit without prejudice on Nov. 21,
saying "they do not wish to pursue a cause of action against the
Defendants at this time." [GN]
TAHOE RESOURCES: Settlement in Attigui Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Attigui v. Tahoe
Resources, Inc et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01868-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.),
the Hon. Judge Richard F. Boulware, II entered an order
preliminarily approving U.S. Settlement.
Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and for purposes of this settlement only, the U.S.
Action is hereby preliminarily certified as a class action on
behalf of all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Tahoe
common stock in the United States or on the NYSE between April 3,
2013 and August 24, 2017, inclusive, and who suffered damages
thereby (U.S. Settlement Class or U.S. Settlement Class Member).
Excluded from the U.S. Settlement Class are the Company, its
officers and directors, employees, affiliates, legal
representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, and assigns, and
any entity in which the Company has a controlling interest or of
which the Company is a parent or subsidiary.
Also excluded from the U.S. Settlement Class will be any Person who
or which timely and validly seeks exclusion from the U.S.
Settlement Class.
A U.S. Settlement Hearing shall be held before this Court on
February 9, 2024 at 8:30 a.m., at the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada, Lloyd D. George Courthouse, 333 Las
Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, NV 89101, Courtroom 7C.
The firm of Epiq Systems, Inc. (U.S. Claims Administrator) is
appointed to supervise and administer the notice program as well as
the processing of claims as more fully set forth below.
As provided in the Stipulation, the U.S. Escrow Agent may disburse
at the direction of U.S. Plaintiff’s Counsel up to $400,000 from
the U.S. Settlement Fund prior to the Effective Date to pay U.S.
Notice and Administration Expenses. For any additional U.S. Notice
and Administration Expenses above $400,000, U.S. Plaintiff’s
Counsel shall obtain Court approval for payments out of the U.S.
Escrow Account.
Tahoe was a mining company and intermediate precious metals
producer with silver and gold mines in Canada, Guatemala and Peru.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SVqepv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Karl Barnickol, Esq.
NEAL GERBER & EISENBERG, LLP
2 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602
TD BANK: Must Respond to Nelipa Class Cert Bid by Jan. 12, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa v. TD Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01092 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 1, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Lashann Dearcy Hall entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file Nov. 30, 2023
their motion for class certification
is:
-- The Defendant's response is due on or Jan. 12, 2024
Before:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply is due on or Feb. 2, 2024
Before:
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States
subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank.[CC]
TENASKA MARKETING: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Gas Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Tenaska
Marketing Ventures and Macquarie Energy LLC, two natural gas
suppliers for a Midwestern distributor, were hit with a proposed
class action from Kansas residents who say the suppliers charged
excessively high prices during winter storm Uri in February 2021.
The suppliers "seized on Winter Storm Uri to redirect a substantial
volume of natural gas that it had agreed to sell at lower prices
and send the same gas" to distributors "at dramatically excessive
prices," the complaint filed on Nov. 21 in the US District Court
for the District of Kansas alleges. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Class Cert Hearing Set for Dec. 11, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIKA OKJE
ERDMANN-BROWNING and JACQUELINE BENITEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture, in his official capacity;
SHALANDA YOUNG, Director of the United States Office of Management
and Budget, in her official capacity, Case No. 4:23-cv-04678-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting
the Parties joint stipulation to the following briefing schedule,
subject to Court approval:
-- Plaintiffs file any Motions for Nov. 14, 2023
Preliminary Injunction and Class
Certification No later than:
-- Defendants file their Oppositions Nov. 29, 2023
to both Motions:
-- Plaintiffs file their Replies No later Dec. 5, 2023
than:
-- Hearing date for both Motions: Dec. 11, 2023
US Department of Agriculture provides leadership on food,
agriculture, natural resources, and related issues.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RdqTBo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jodie Berger, Esq.
Richard Rothschild, Esq.
Robert Newman, Esq.
Antionette Dozier, Esq.
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY
3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 235-2617
Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
E-mail: jberger@wclp.org
rrothschild@wclp.org
rnewman@wclp.org
adozier@wclp.org
- and -
Lindsay Nako, Esq.
Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq.
Meredith Dixon, Esq.
IMPACT FUND
2080 Addison St., Suite 5
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 845-3473
Facsimile: (510) 845-3654
E-mail: lnako@impactfund.org
fkorr@impactfund.org
mdixon@impactfund.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyla M. Snow, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES: Court Stays Jimenez Suit Until Dec. 11
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARDO SANCHEZ JIMENEZ,
et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00967-SSS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered an order extending stay:
1. The case and all pending deadlines, including discovery
deadlines, are stayed through December 11, 2023.
2. Either party may file a motion to lift the stay at any time.
Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive
department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to
the interior or home ministries of other countries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SVvVDP at no extra charge.[CC]
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Certification Due Jan. 29, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crain v. Upstart Holdings,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial
order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to Dec. 6,
2024
join additional parties shall be filed
by:
-- If the case is a class action, the parties Jan. 29,
2024
agree that the motion for class
certification shall be filed by:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion Jan. 29,
2024
for class certification, including expert
report(s), if any:
-- Deadline for the Defendants to Feb. 28,
2024
depose Proposed class representative(s),
Plaintiffs' class certification expert(s),
and/or other witnesses in connection with
the motion for class certification:
-- Deadline for Defendants to file opposition March 29,
2024
to class certification, including exper
report(s), if any:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to depose Defendants' April 26,
2024
class certification expert(s), and/or other
witnesses in connection with the motion for
class certification:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file reply in May 17,
2024:
support of class certification, including
expert rebuttal report(s), if any:
The case alleges violations of sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is brought on behalf of a
proposed class of all purchasers of Upstart Holdings, Inc.
securities for the period December 16, 2020 to November 8, 2022,
inclusive.
The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case.
The parties anticipate that they will engage a private mediator for
this matter at the appropriate time will not require the
assistance of the Court. At this time, it is unclear when the case
will be ready for mediation.
Upstart engages in the provision of a cloud-based artificial
intelligence lending platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QVdo80 at no extra charge.[CC]
VERADIGM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Veradigm Inc. ("Veradigm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
MDRX) in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Veradigm securities between February 26, 2021
and June 13, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until January 22, 2024 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The Veradigm class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Veradigm had overstated its
historical revenues by at least $20 million; (ii) Veradigm had
artificially inflated its revenue by recording duplicate
transactions, among other things, over a more than two-year period;
(iii) Veradigm had artificially inflated its earnings and margins
and materially misrepresented demand for Veradigm's products and
services; (iv) Veradigm had failed to maintain effective internal
controls over its financial reporting; and (v) Veradigm had failed
to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles regarding
appropriate revenue recognition practices.
On February 28, 2023, Veradigm announced that it had "detected
certain internal control failures related to revenue recognition
that had occurred over the prior six quarters, resulting in a
misstatement of reported revenues during those periods." Veradigm
disclosed that the revenue misstatements caused revenue to be
overstated by approximately $20 million from the third quarter of
2021 until the fourth quarter of 2022. On this news, the price of
Veradigm stock fell nearly 13%.
Then, on June 13, 2023, Veradigm revealed that it had identified
additional revenue misstatements dating back to fiscal year 2020.
Veradigm further disclosed that its internal review on the nature
and extent of the accounting and internal control errors would take
longer than previously disclosed, and Veradigm's independent
auditors needed more time to complete their audit procedures. As a
result, Veradigm would not meet the deadline to file its annual
report on Form 10-K. On this news, the price of Veradigm stock fell
more than 4%.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Veradigm shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email
at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***