/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231218.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 252 Headlines 3M CO: Manitowoc Opts to Stay in PFAS Class Action Lawsuit ACUTUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ADAPTHEALTH CORP: County Workers' Fund Hits SEC Disclosures ADECCO USA: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action ADIDAS AMERICA: Parties Must File Status Report by Feb. 15, 2024 ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissed Securities Suit Under Appeal ATHENA COSMETICS: Rush Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Beauty Products AUSTRALIA: Class Action Group Makes Settlement Counter Offer AUSTRALIA: NFF Lauds Live Cattle Export Settlement Counter Offer BANK OF AMERICA: Pfeffer Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Browning Alleges Labor Law Breaches BENSON INDUSTRIES: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BERGER BROS: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BLOOM ENERGY: $3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 18 BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Potential Elevance Sale BLUE RIDGE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims CITIBANK NA: Gaboyan et al. Allege National Origin Discrimination CLEARVIEW AI: Agrees to Settle Illinois BIPA Class Action COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in New York COMERICA INC: Bragar Eagel Probes Breach of Fiduciary Duties COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Troutman Pepper Discusses FDCPA Suit Ruling CREDIT BUREAU: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due June 14, 2024 EHANG HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 2 EXPENSIFY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 29 FORD MOTOR: Burke Sues Over Defective SUVs' Camera System GREAT LAKES: February 23 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set GRIDSUM HOLDING: Investors Seek $4.5MM Settlement Approval INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Mohammad Files Suit in D. Massachusetts INTERNATIONAL UNION: Prosser Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INTERNATIONAL UNION: Prosser Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE: Heinz Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts JCPENNEY OPCO LLC: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota KFC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Meal Breaks KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Allowed to File Documents Under Seal KROGER CO: Parents Renew Class Action Over Teething Wafers LELAND STANFORD: Appeals Court Orders in Hines Suit to 5th Cir. LENOVO INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Augustine Due April 2, 2024 LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Gibbs Files Bid for Default Judgment LIVEPERSON INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 30 LIVEPERSON INC: Damri Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Scheduling Conference Extended to Jan. 25 M/V HARVEY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in UPRC Suit MAJOR ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 1, 2024 ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Must Submit Expert Reports by Jan. 18, 2024 MEDICINE MAN: Fowler FLSA Suit Mediation Set for Feb. 1, 2024 META PLATFORMS: User Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Portions MGM RESORTS: Albrigo Suit Transferred to D. Nevada MHM HEALTH: Lewis Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal MICROSOFT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Saeedy Due Jan. 31, 2025 MIDFIRST BANK: Strother Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts MIDJOURNEY INC: Artists' Lawyers File Amended Complaint MILLIMAN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 25, 2024 MISSISSIPPI: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by June 30, 2025 MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: Gardner Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Court Narrows Claims in Rodriguez MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Gevara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 22 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Appeal in Antitrust Class Action Pending NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Action May Elevate Assisted Living Role NEW HAMPSHIRE: Must Face Class Action Over Nursing Home Program NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Doe Suit Over Alleged Discrimination NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces ERISA Suit Over Employees' Fund Handling NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over SEC Non-disclosure NEXTERA ENERGY: Sued Over Campaign Law Violations NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH: Houston Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia NORTHWELL HEALTH: Kawa Orthodontics Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimile OASIS BAKERY: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York OLD NAVY: Faces Class Action in California Over AI Chatbots POSTMEDS INC: Autry Files Suit in N.D. California PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Hakemi Sues Over Unsecured Private Information R L M K INC: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RENOVARO BIOSCIENCES: Continues to Defend Choi Securities Suit ROBLOX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 26 SECURTEST INC: Judge Tosses FCRA Class Action Settlement SELENE FINANCE: Dominguez Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practice SOUTH BAY GUNITE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Homeowners' Earthquake Class Action Tossed SPIRIT REALTY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Realty Income Sale STEWART TITLE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Biondi Says T/J INSPECTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Farnes Suit Alleges TARGET CORP: Faces Up & Up Sunscreen False Advertising Lawsuit VISA INC: Judge Wants Scam Class Suit Settlement Site Be Shut Down WALT DISNEY: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Keene Suit Removed to E.D. California WEST VIRGINIA: Wants Class Action Over Jail Conditions Tossed WESTERN UNION: Court Tosses Radulescu Class Status Bid WESTJET AIRLINES: Application to Amend Class Definition Dismissed WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Suit Over Flex Commissions WHITE WALKER LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WHITEFIELD: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Trowell [*] Housing Sector Outlook Expected to Improve in 2024 Amid Suits ********* 3M CO: Manitowoc Opts to Stay in PFAS Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Seehafernews.com reports that the City of Manitowoc has made a decision about where they stand on the PFAS lawsuits against two corporations. The common council voted unanimously last Wednesday (November 29th) during a special council meeting to stay in the lawsuit, unlike their Cool City counterparts. Mayor Justin Nickels says after a discussion with Manitowoc Public Utilities, who takes care of the city's water, and looking at the facts of the cases, it made sense for Manitowoc to stay in. "The city would definitely get a benefit," he clarified. "And the other benefit that we have is long term down the road no matter what, we still have Lake Michigan and that clean water where we can provide clean water to anyone in our area. When were able to provide water from Lake Michigan, it's much less of a concern." Nickels says right now, isn't known what the settlement money would be used for. Two Rivers City Manager Greg Buckley told Seehafer News that the city saw too many risks with the lawsuit and decided to opt-out. Nickels countered with, "Sometimes the more the merrier. It proves a point that this isn't just a singular issue it's a nationwide issue with PFAS. So, to us we felt the risk was very minimalized. If the lawsuit doesn't go our way, what's the harm I guess." The lawsuits against 3M and Dupont would allow between $10.5 billion to $12 billion to be returned to communities after the companies both had links to PFAS or forever chemicals that can affect people's health greatly if ingested in drinking water. [GN] ACUTUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Acutus Medical 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 14, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated class suits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Company and certain of its current and former officers have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on February 14, 2022 and March 23, 2022. On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two actions, appointed a lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel for the proposed class. On September 16, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss. On September 27, 2023, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety, but gave plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. On October 27, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting similar claims. The Company is defending the action. Acutus Medical, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets a range of tools for catheter-based ablation procedures to treat various arrhythmias including access sheaths, diagnostic and mapping catheters, ablation catheters, mapping and imaging consoles and accessories, as well as supporting algorithms and software programs. ADAPTHEALTH CORP: County Workers' Fund Hits SEC Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------- AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that on October 24, 2023, the Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, a purported shareholder of the company, filed a purported class action complaint against the company and certain of its current and former officers, and certain underwriters for a Company follow-on offering conducted in January 2021 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the company's stock between August 4, 2020 and February 27, 2023 and generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material information regarding the company's organic growth in its diabetes segment. AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical equipment, medical supplies and related services. ADECCO USA: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Staffing Industry reports that a former employee of The Adecco Group in San Francisco filed a class action lawsuit against the staffing firm, claiming it did not pay all final wages within the required deadline. The named plaintiff, Elisa Recoder, worked as a driverless support specialist, according to court records. Her employment was terminated; she had worked in the role from July 31 through Aug. 24 of this year. Recoder has still not received her final earned wages, according to court filings. The lawsuit seeks to represent all former nonexempt employees of Adecco in California who were paid wages at any time from Nov. 9, 2020, through the present. The suit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court on Nov. 9. The case is Elisa Recoder v. Adecco USA Inc., San Francisco Superior Court, CGC-23-610349. [GN] ADIDAS AMERICA: Parties Must File Status Report by Feb. 15, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Smith, v. Adidas America, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00788-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before February 15, 2024. -- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by November 22, 2023. -- Initial Written Discovery Demands must be served by December 29, 2023. -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before October 16, 2024. Adidas America designs and markets apparel products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RzN9ps at no extra charge.[CC] ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissed Securities Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Array Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that on August 4, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's dismissal of a consolidated amended complaint. On September 11, 2023, pursuant to a scheduling request filed by lead plaintiffs, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered lead plaintiffs to file their opening brief in the Second Circuit Appeal by November 17, 2023. On December 7, 2021, an amended class action complaint was filed by Plymouth County Retirement Association and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California against the company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period from October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021. The consolidated amended complaint alleges misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the company's registration statements and prospectuses related to the company's IPO, its 2020 follow-on offering, and its 2021 follow-on offering in its Annual Report on Form 10-K and associated press release announcing results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2020 and in the company's November 5, 2020 and March 9, 2021 earnings calls. On October 17, 2022, the company and other defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a motion opposing the motion to dismiss on December 16, 2022, and the company and other defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on January 17, 2023. On July 5, 2023, the court denied the lead plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint and dismissed the Plymouth Action with prejudice. Array Technologies, Inc. is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and manufactures and supplies solar tracking systems and related products for customers across the United States and internationally. The company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, ATI Investment Sub, Inc., owns subsidiaries through which it conducts substantially all operations. ATHENA COSMETICS: Rush Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Beauty Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Rush, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATHENA COSMETICS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-08799 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023), is brought arising from the false, misleading, unfair, and deceptive sale of beauty products without disclosing dangerous risks and side effects of the products' key ingredient. Athena deceptively marketed and sold the Enhancement Serums, without a prescription, as cosmetics or so-called "serums" (not as drugs), with no warning of serious side effects or risks. Instead, Athena touted the safety of the Enhancement Serums. The Enhancement Serums, however, contain dechloro dihdroxy difluoro ethylcloprostenolamide ("DDDE"). DDDE is a prostaglandin analog (PGA), which is in the same class of compounds as the active ingredient found in prescription drugs that grows eyelashes, like Latisse--which the FDA has approved for use only under the supervision of a physician due to the possible adverse effects associated with its active ingredient. PGAs such as DDDE improve hair growth, causing eye lashes and eyebrows to grow longer, darker, and thicker. However, they are also known to cause serious adverse effects to the eye and the structure around the eye, including but not limited to blepharitis, Meibomian Gland Dysfunction, chronic dry eye, redness, discoloration, pain or irritation, and other serious side effects. Athena did not disclose the risk of any side effects associated with its Enhancement Serums and has even affirmatively denied, in its marketing and labeling materials, that its products contain any active ingredient or "drug." To the contrary, Athena falsely implied the Enhancement Serums are effective at improving the appearance of eyelashes and eyebrows because of the natural ingredients and "vitamins" contained therein. To the contrary, the longer hair effect is the result of the active ingredient, DDDE a "drug" associated with many undisclosed side effects. Athena continues to deceptively and fraudulently market its Enhancement Serums as beauty products or "cosmetics," misleadingly suggesting the Enhancement Serums are merely natural products that "enhance" appearance only without any effect on the human body (viz., hair, lash, or brows). This is untrue because the Enhancement Serums contain an active ingredient known to stimulate hair, lash, and brow growth, which also carries substantial health risks that Athena did not and does not disclose. The Plaintiff is one of many consumers who purchased the Enhancement Serums without knowing that using the products as directed by the manufacturer can cause serious side effects, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, while in New York, purchased RevitaBrow Advanced and RevitaLash Advanced, among other products. The Defendant manufactures and sells beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Samberg, Esq. PETER SAMBERG – ATTORNEY AT LAW 100 Ardsley Ave. West Ardsley on Hudson, NY 10503 Phone: 914-391-1213 Email: psamberg@gmail.com - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 267-435-1300 Email: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com - and - Louiza Tarassova, Esq. LOU LAW 2180 N Park Ave., Suite 208 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: 407-622-1885 Email: louiza@mylawadvocate.com AUSTRALIA: Class Action Group Makes Settlement Counter Offer ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Fitzgerald, writing for ABC Rural, reports that the applicants in the long-running class action over Australia's 2011 live export ban have made a counter offer for compensation from the federal government in an attempt to settle the case more than three years after a court ruled in their favour. In 2020, the Federal Court found the former Labor government's decision to ban live exports to Indonesia was unlawful, with a group of cattle producers, exporters and service providers originally seeking $600 million in compensation for lost income. For the last three years, the group has been negotiating over the compensation figure, and the government's $215m offer has been knocked back twice. The 215-strong class action group has now offered to settle the case for $510m, plus costs and interest, which, according to the National Farmers Federation (NFF), could see a settlement of between $800m to $900m. "This latest settlement offer is an attempt to bring to an end a very painful chapter in the history of Australian agriculture that has done severe and unnecessary damage to producers, their families and the broader supply chain," NFF chief executive Tony Mahar said. "The government's political decision to end live export showed scant regard for its own departmental advice, and caused widespread financial damage, family break ups, and even suicide among those impacted. "Agriculture Minister Murray Watt needs to accept this offer and bring this matter to an end, giving farmers and their families affected the closure that they deserve following the findings of the Federal Court." Delay 'strategy' criticised A spokesperson for federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus says "the delay in resolving this proceeding is not due to any actions by the Commonwealth". "The Commonwealth has engaged in a good faith attempt to settle the claims made by the applicants, including by making an offer of settlement of $215 million in December 2022," the spokesperson said. During the October NFF National Conference, Mr Watt said his preference was for the class action settlement to be resolved, but believed criticism of the government's role in the delays was not right. "We made a settlement offer of $215 million worth of taxpayer money before Christmas last year … and, frankly, I think the claimants need to have a really good hard talk to their lawyers about the strategy they're employing," he said. "I think those lawyers need to get their act together and make sure they're properly representing their clients who deserve a fair and decent outcome." The NFF said the "government has until January 19, 2024, to accept the offer or face a potentially much more significant payout allowing the Federal Court to rule on the quantum of damages". [GN] AUSTRALIA: NFF Lauds Live Cattle Export Settlement Counter Offer ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) has welcomed a counter offer made to the Commonwealth Government to hopefully close the long-running class action of those left devastated by the unlawful closure of the live cattle export trade in 2011. The applicant in the class action has made an open offer in good faith to the Commonwealth of $510 million plus costs and interest to settle the Brett Cattle Company Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture [2020] FCA 732 class action that would be a fair and equitable end to what the Federal Court has found was malfeasance by the Gillard Government to destroy the live cattle export trade in Australia. The group of 215 parties to the class action include cattle producers, exporters and independent service providers, such as veterinarians and musterers, who were completely devastated by the Commonwealth Government decision to end the live cattle trade virtually overnight and are still waiting on compensation. NFF CEO Tony Mahar said it is clear Minister Murray Watt needs to accept this reasonable offer and allows families to move on from a traumatic event that has been running for over ten years. "This latest settlement offer is an attempt to bring to an end a very painful chapter in the history of Australian agriculture that has done severe and unnecessary damage to producers, their families and the broader supply chain. "The Government's political decision to end live export, showed scant regard for its own departmental advice, and caused widespread financial damage, family break ups, and even suicide among those impacted. "The rushed decision following a Four Corners story combined with a premeditated campaign by animal rights activists was found to have been unlawful, with the Federal Court taking the extraordinary step of labelling the action 'capricious, irrational and unreasonable'." The latest by the applicant proposes compensation of $510 million plus interest plus cost which would likely see a settlement to those effected of between $800 million and $900 million. The Commonwealth Government has until 19 January 2024 to accept the offer or face a potentially much more significant payout allowing the Federal Court to rule on the quantum of damages. Last year the Commonwealth Government offered to settle the case for $215 million interest and costs included, which was clearly insubstantial given the findings of the court in terms of breach by the Commonwealth. "Agriculture Minister Murray Watt needs to accept this offer and bring this matter to an end, giving farmers and their families effected the closure that they deserve following the findings of the Federal Court," Mr Mahar said. With the Commonwealth Government currently considering the banning of the live sheep trade, this case should be a timely reminder to those in power that capricious decision making around Australian agriculture can have catastrophic impacts for the lives of Australian farmers. "This case and the consequences for the Commonwealth should be a lesson on how not to operate and we hope they've learned the lessons from the past in their attempts to ban the live sheep export trade in Australia. In the last 48 hours the Labor Premier of Western Australia has called on the Albanese Government to reverse its decision and the Commonwealth needs to listen," Mr Mahar said. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Pfeffer Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Russell Pfeffer, David Dessner, Adam Sherman, Frank Cronin, Roger Rojas, Jason Auerbach, and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-00813 (W.D.N.C., Nov. 30, 2023), is brought to recover the overtime and minimum wage the Defendants willfully failed to pay them while they were doing it in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Like all MLOs, the Plaintiffs sold the Defendants' mortgage and other loan products on commission. They received no salary, routinely worked nights, weekends and in excess of 60 hour weeks, and, with their follow MLOs, generated billions of dollars for the Defendants. From at least 2016, the Defendants systematically misclassified the Plaintiffs and thousands of loan officers across the country as exempt employees under the FLSA and state labor laws. It then, apparently on the basis of this misclassification, simply did not track or pay overtime to the Plaintiffs and thousands of other loan officers across the country for at least seven years. The Defendants did, however, knowingly accept and effectively require tens of hours of overtime work from each of the Plaintiffs and their thousands of colleagues every regular workweek they were employed by the Defendants. It has systematically and willfully violated the FLSA and the labor laws of dozens of states for at least seven years, likely much longer and through today, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were Mortgage Loan Officers ("MLOs") employed by Bank of America in New York, Connecticut, South Carolina and Florida. The Bank of America Corp is a bank holding company incorporated in the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob Wellman, Esq. TEAGUE CAMPBELL DENNIS & GORHAM, LLP 4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 450 Raleigh, NC 27609 Phone: 919.719.4734 Facsimile: 919.873.1814 Email: JWellman@teaguecampbell.com - and - Barry R. Lax, Esq. LAX & NEVILLE, LLP 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4640 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-696-1999 Facsimile: 212-566-4531 Email: blax@laxneville.com BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Browning Alleges Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------- BILLYJOE BROWNING, individually and for others similarly situated v. BASSETT HEALTHCARE NETWORK, Case No. 6:23-cv-01514-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y., December 1, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and its implementing regulations. Plaintiff Browning worked for the Bassett an environmental services tech and, later, a certified nursing assistant, at Bassett Medical Centerin Cooperstown, New York from approximately January 2023 until March 2023. Throughout her employment, Bassett classified Browning as non-exempt and paid heron an hourly basis. However, Bassett subjected Browning to its common practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes a day from her recorded work time for meal breaks despite the fact that Browning did not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Thus, Bassett uniformly deprives Browning of overtime wages for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Cooperstown, NY, Bassett is a New York non-profit corporation operates five hospitals and provides care and services to people living in a rural eight-county region covering 5,600 square miles in upstate New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Iversen, Esq. E.STEWART JONES HACKER MURPHY, LLP 28 Second Street Troy, NY 12180 Telephone: (518) 274-5820 Facsimile: (518) 274-5875 E-mail: diversen@joneshacker.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com BENSON INDUSTRIES: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benson Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Tyrese Lyons, individually, and on behalf or all others similarly situated v. Benson Industries, Inc., Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23610746 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Benson Industries, Inc. -- https://www.bensonglobal.com/ -- designs, engineers, supplies, and installs curtain wall external cladding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com BERGER BROS: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berger Bros. Camera Exchange, Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Berger Bros. Camera Exchange, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-08840 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Berger Bros -- https://www.berger-bros.com/ -- specializes in Customer Service and a Camera Store selling Digital Cameras, Lenses, Video, Drones, Binoculars, and Accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com BLOOM ENERGY: $3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Bloom Energy Corporation ("Bloom") from July 25, 2018, to March 31, 2020, inclusive: PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for purposes of the Settlement only on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $3,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the Action. A hearing will be held on April 18, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States Courthouse, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612 or via Zoom, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Settling Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 29, 2023, (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.BloomEnergySettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Bloom Energy Settlement, c/o Epiq Global, PO Box 2230 Portland, OR 97208-2230, 1-844-334-1078. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than March 29, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than March 18, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Lead Counsel's motions for i) final approval of the settlement; ii) attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses; and iii) awards to plaintiffs are due on February 1, 2024. The motions and supporting materials will be posted to www.BloomEnergySettlement.com once filed. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motions for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to plaintiffs, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Settling Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than March 18, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Settling Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP Nicholas Porritt, Esq. 1101 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 542-4290 nporritt@zlk.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Bloom Energy Settlement c/o Epiq Global P.O. Box 2230 Portland, OR 97208-2230 844-334-1078 www.BloomEnergySettlement.com By Order of the Court URL: www.BloomEnergySettlement.com [GN] BLUE CROSS: Faces Class Action Over Potential Elevance Sale ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Riegel, writing for Nola, reports that a lawsuit filed on Dec. 4 in Baton Rouge state court is seeking to effectively block the potential sale of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana to national insurer Elevance Health. Though the controversial deal is currently on hold, both companies have said they plan to move forward with the sale in early 2024. Tut Kinney, an attorney and Blue Cross policyholder, filed the suit individually but is seeking to certify it as a class action on behalf of the roughly 92,000 Blue Cross policyholders across the state. The suit doesn't name Blue Cross or Elevance but, instead, takes aim at the Accelerate Louisiana Initiative, a social welfare foundation that would be funded with some $3.5 billion in sale proceeds and surplus Blue Cross assets. Kinney, a Metairie lawyer, argues that policyholders, who have individually paid thousands of dollars in premiums to Blue Cross over the years, essentially own Blue Cross, a nonprofit, mutual indemnity company. They, not a foundation, are therefore entitled to proceeds from the sale to Elevance, the suit says. The Accelerate Louisiana Foundation was created in late 2022 by four members of the Blue Cross board of directors with a mission to "work to improve the health and lives of the people of Louisiana." At $3.5 billion, it would dwarf other charitable and social welfare foundations in the state. The suit comes two months after Blue Cross tabled its request for regulatory approval to sell to Elevance amid increased scrutiny from policyholders, doctors, hospitals, state lawmakers and Gov.-elect Jeff Landry. But the company has said it still plans to move forward with the sale. In the meantime, Landry has formed a committee to advise him on the deal. His office declined to comment on the committee or the lawsuit. Kinney said it is important to file suit now before a new plan to sell the company is filed with the Louisiana Department of Insurance, which, along with two-thirds of Blue Cross policyholders, must approve reorganizing and selling the company before the deal is finalized. "It's important to stop Accelerate from being part of a plan that they have no business being part of," Kinney said. "I want to stop them from proceeding further with their plan." Blue Cross did not respond to a request seeking comment. 'Irreparable harm' Blue Cross announced its plans to sell to Elevance early this year, arguing that a large national insurer with the latest tools and technology could offer better coverage and lower prices to the some 1.9 million Louisiana residents that carry some form of Blue Cross insurance. The deal called for giving more than 90% of the sale proceeds to the Accelerate Louisiana Initiative and distributing the rest -- about $300 million -- to the 92,000 policyholders, who would receive less than $3,300 each. Blue Cross customers who are not policyholders--employees on a company-sponsored insurance plan, for instance--would not be entitled to a piece of the payout. As policyholders and healthcare providers began looking more closely into the deal, they began to question why the foundation was getting the lion's share of sale proceeds and why the foundation would be controlled by four Blue Cross board members. They also raised concerns about whether selling a local nonprofit insurer to a large, publicly-traded company was in the best interest of a state that has some of the poorest residents with the worst health outcomes in the country. Kinney's suit speaks to both sets of concerns. It argues that Accelerate Louisiana is trying to unlawfully take property that belongs to policyholders and is interfering with the health insurance provided by Blue Cross. The suit also cites two expert reports commissioned earlier this year by the state to evaluate the deals that question its fairness. "Kinney and the class will be harmed by the termination of its member controlled health insurer and will be harmed by Accelerate taking its property," the suit said. No hearings have been set in the case. [GN] BLUE RIDGE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. (NYSE American: BRBS) resulting from allegations that Blue Ridge Bankshares may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Blue Ridge Bankshares securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20587 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. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 31, 2023, after market hours, Blue Ridge Bankshares disclosed that its "audited financial statements included in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, and unaudited interim financial statements included in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2023 and June 30, 2023 should no longer be relied upon and will be restated." Further, Blue Ridge Bankshares advised that, in part, "[t]he effect of the adjustments will result in lower net income and earnings per share in the year ended December 31, 2022." On this news, Blue Ridge Bankshares' stock fell by $1.06 per share, or 33.65%, to close at $2.09 per share on November 1, 2023. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. 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] CITIBANK NA: Gaboyan et al. Allege National Origin Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARSEN GABOYAN, an individual; MELANIA GABOYAN, an individual; ADAM SAPUNJIAN, an individual; GEORGE SAPUNJIAN, an individual; and JACK SAPUNJIAN, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10148 (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendants for national origin discrimination and for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs allege that, between 2015 and 2021, Citibank, N.A. engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against customers and/or potential customers based on their Armenian national origin. Citi applied extra scrutiny to those of Armenian national origin when they applied for, and/or sought to maintain, banking services such as credit cards, checking accounts, savings accounts, lines of credit, increases in credit amounts, etc. This often resulted in Citi declining these customers' applications for such services and/or closing financial/credit accounts that were previously opened and in good standing, despite offering these services to other similarly situated customers who were not Armenian, say the Plaintiffs. Citi is a global bank with assets of over $1 trillion. It provides a wide variety of financial products and services to its global and domestic clients, including, among others, credit cards, lines of credit, and personal and business checking accounts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Bazerkanian, Esq. C&B LAW GROUP LLP 2315 W. Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506 Telephone: (213) 986-3430 Facsimile: (213) 986-9860 E-mail: jack@cblawgroup.com - and - Caleb Liang, Esq. Kevin B. Kelly, Esq. LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 300 S Grand Ave, Suite 3950 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-8900 Facsimile: (213) 612-3773 E-mail: caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com kevin.kelly@ltlattorneys.com CLEARVIEW AI: Agrees to Settle Illinois BIPA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Conor Healy, writing for IPVM, reports that technology companies often embrace "move fast and break things," but that can be costly when you ignore the law. Case in point, Clearview AI will settle a class action lawsuit in Illinois over its scraping of billions of photos from social media without obtaining consent, an alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, according to a recent court filing. [GN] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Columbia University failed to protect students' and employees' sensitive information, leaving it vulnerable to a data breach in May 2023, according to a class action lawsuit filed Nov. 21 in New York federal court. Plaintiff Alexandra Lardis is a Columbia University alumna who says she was the victim of fraud as a result of the Columbia University data breach. She says she experienced three fraud attempts in which a criminal attempted to use her credit card without her knowledge or consent. At the time of these fraud attempts, Lardis says she had no idea that her sensitive data had been compromised in a massive data breach that reportedly affected nearly 900 colleges. The Columbia University class action lawsuit points to information the National Student Clearinghouse submitted to the California attorney general's office in September 2023 about the hack of a file-sharing tool called MOVEit, which was utilized by the affected colleges. MOVEit reportedly had a security vulnerability that enabled cybercriminals to gain access to the putative class members' sensitive information around May 30, 2023. The information compromised in the Columbia University data breach reportedly included Social Security numbers, birthdates, financial information and other sensitive data that could be used by criminals to perpetrate identity theft. Columbia University class action claims class members were never notified about data breach Lardis claims that Columbia University learned about the data breach shortly after it took place yet failed to notify students and employees whose sensitive information may have been compromised. She argues that Columbia failed to adhere to its own cybersecurity protections and protocols that were meant to protect sensitive information that had been entrusted into its custody. Had Columbia University provided timely notification about the breach, Landis says she and putative class members could have acted more quickly to mitigate the damage. The Columbia University class action lawsuit claims the university still has not sent out notification letters to inform putative class members that their sensitive information may have been compromised in the data breach. Lardis asserts claims against Columbia University for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of express contract and violations of New York business law. Earlier this year, a Columbia University class action lawsuit alleged the university submitted false data to college ranking services. Were you affected by the Columbia University data breach? Tell us about your experience in the comments. Lardis is represented by Matthew A. Girardi, L. Timothy Fisher and Jonathan L. Wolloch of Bursor & Fisher PA. The Columbia University data breach class action lawsuit is Alexandra Lardis v. Columbia University, Case No. 1:23-cv-10241-ALC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] COMERICA INC: Bragar Eagel Probes Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) on behalf of long-term stockholders following a class action complaint that was filed against Comerica on August 21, 2023 with a Class Period from February 9, 2021 to May 29, 2023. Our investigation concerns whether the board of directors of Comerica have breached their fiduciary duties to the company. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Comerica failed to provide meaningful oversight over the vendors to whom it contracted out day-to-day operations of the Direct Express program, a system through which it is contracted to provide federal benefits to millions of Americans without bank accounts; (2) as a result of violations in the day-to-day operations of Direct Express, including handling fraud disputes and allowing sensitive data to be handled out of a vendor's office in Pakistan, Comerica was not in compliance with the Federal Contract, and knew it was not in compliance; (3) Comerica knew and failed to disclose that it was in potential violation of Regulation E due to inadequate fraud prevention in the Direct Express program and responses to instances of fraud; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you are a long-term stockholder of Comerica, 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, by 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 and California. 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. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Troutman Pepper Discusses FDCPA Suit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefanie Jackman, Esq., and Ethan Ostroff, Esq., of Troutman Pepper, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that on November 22, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing in a putative class action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In Morales v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., the plaintiff incurred a debt to a medical services provider. The debt was assigned to another entity and then referred to the defendant for collection. In late 2021, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter containing a statute of limitations disclosure: "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, the creditor cannot sue you for it. In many circumstances, you can renew the debt and start the time period for the filing of a lawsuit against you if you take specific actions such as making certain payments on the debt or making a written promise to pay. You should determine the effect of any actions you take with respect to this debt." The plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated New Jersey residents who received the defendant's letter alleging a violation of § 1692e of the FDCPA because the disclosure is false, deceptive, or misleading. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the disclosure is misleading because by writing the "creditor cannot sue you for [the debt]," the defendant failed to inform her that she could be sued on the debt, despite having a complete legal defense to such a suit. She also alleged that the statute of limitations disclosure is misleading because by writing "[i]n many circumstances, you can renew the debt and start the time period for the filing of a lawsuit against you if you take specific actions such as making certain payments on the debt or making a written promise to pay," the defendant misrepresents the actions required to revive debt under New Jersey law. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim relying on numerous district court opinions analyzing substantially similar debt collection letters and finding the language did not violate the FDCPA. The plaintiff appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Third Circuit issued a decision in Huber v. Simon's Agency, Inc., which we discussed here. In Huber, the appellate court rejected a district court's finding that the so-called informational injury doctrine, which stands for the proposition that the omission of statutorily required information can result in a cognizable injury, established Article III standing for the named plaintiff and putative class in a class action brought under the FDCPA. The Third Circuit requested supplemental briefing from the parties in Morales on how Huber affected the appeal. After briefing concluded, the Third Circuit held that the plaintiff had not established Article III standing. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff only showed a "mere risk" of harm, which cannot support standing. Under either the informational injury doctrine or traditional standing principles, the plaintiff must plead facts showing that she suffered some adverse consequence from her receipt of the allegedly false or misleading letter. The court found that the plaintiff did not plead any facts showing either that she relied upon the defendant's letter or that she suffered any consequence flowing from that reliance. Instead, the plaintiff simply pled that she received an allegedly misleading letter with nothing more. The court found this insufficient because "[m]ere confusion and the speculative risk of a lawsuit are not enough to confer standing to an FDCPA plaintiff." The court vacated the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and remanded the case to the district court to decide whether to grant the plaintiff leave to plead additional facts in an attempt to show standing or dismiss without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. [GN] CREDIT BUREAU: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due June 14, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD D. MYERS, Bankruptcy trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Donna Jean Lunsford; v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC., and C. J. TIGHE, Case No. 8:20-cv-00141-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Bazis entered an amended final progression order as follows: 1) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. 2) A status conference to discuss case progression and the parties’ interest in settlement will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge by telephone on May 30, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. 3) The deadline for completion of remaining discovery is May 31, 2024. 4) The deadline to file Motions for Class Certification is June 14, 2024. 5) The deadline for summary judgment motions is July 1, 2024. 6) All requests to modify dates shall be presented to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for approval. Credit Bureau was founded in 1976. The Company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tb0zJM at no extra charge.[CC] EHANG HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of EHang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: EH) between January 20, 2022 and November 6, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for EHang investors under the federal securities laws. To join the EHang class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20249 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) EHang has continued to state that it is partnering with United Therapeutics, DHL and Vodafone, among others, even though a former EHang employee has noted that United Therapeutics, DHL, and Vodafone have abandoned their respective deals with EHang; (2) EHang omitted that other entities that had placed pre-orders for its aircraft, such as Prestige Aviation and Shenzhen Boling Holding Group, did not engage in regular business in the aviation sector and are otherwise almost certainly not in a financial position to be able to afford their orders; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 2, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20249 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] EXPENSIFY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 4 disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of Expensify, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXFY) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection with Expensify's initial public offering conducted on or about November 11, 2021 ("IPO"), have until January 29, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Expensify class action lawsuit. Captioned Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc., No. 23-cv-01784 (D. Or.), the Expensify class action lawsuit charges Expensify and certain of its top executive officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Expensify class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-expensify-inc-class-action-lawsuit-exfy.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Expensify provides a cloud-based expense management software platform to individuals, small businesses, and corporations in the United States and internationally. The Expensify class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's offering documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Expensify's revenue growth was highly susceptible to structural and macroeconomic headwinds; (ii) as a result, Expensify overstated the efficacy of its business model and the likelihood it would meet the long-term growth projections touted in the offering documents; and (iii) accordingly, Expensify's post-IPO financial position and/or business prospects were overstated. The Expensify class action lawsuit alleges that on June 12, 2023, Morgan Stanley downgraded Expensify to Underweight from Equal-weight, citing structural headwinds and Expensify's risk-reward profile. On this news, Expensify's stock price fell more than 6%, the complaint alleges. The Expensify class action lawsuit further alleges that on August 8, 2023, Expensify issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2023 financial and operating results, reporting earnings per share of -$0.14, missing the consensus estimate of -$0.07, and revenue of $38.9 million, which likewise missed the consensus estimate of $41.5 million. Expensify also withdrew its previously issued revenue growth guidance, according to the complaint. On this news, Expensify's stock price fell more than 28%, the Expensify class action lawsuit alleges. Finally, the Expensify class action lawsuit also alleges that on November 7, 2023, Expensify issued a press release announcing third quarter 2023 financial and operating results that once again missed consensus estimates amid macroeconomic headwinds. Among other items, Expensify reported a third quarter loss of $0.21 per share and a 14.1% year-over-year revenue decline, according to the complaint. On this news, Expensify's stock price fell nearly 37%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Expensify common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Expensify 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 Expensify class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Expensify class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Expensify class action lawsuit. 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] FORD MOTOR: Burke Sues Over Defective SUVs' Camera System --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BURKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01249-LJV (W.D.N.Y., December 1, 2023) arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading marketing, advertising, and sale or lease of 2020-2023 Ford Explorer, 2020-2023 Lincoln Aviator, and/or 2020-2022 Lincoln Corsair SUVs asserting claims against the Defendant for breach of written warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of mechantability, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New York General Business Law. The said vehicles are equipped with a defective 360-Degree Camera system which routinely and systematically glitches or malfunctions while the affected vehicles are operating in reverse, resulting in a total loss of the rear camera image and displaying instead a blank screen or blue or black image, says the suit. Headquartered in Dearborn, MI, Ford Motor is a Delaware for-profit corporation that designs, manufactures, and markets automobiles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 979-3642 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 Facsimile: (305) 357-9050 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com GREAT LAKES: February 23 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Kickham Hanley PLLC announced on Dec. 4 that Judge Charles Hegarty of the Wayne County Circuit Court preliminarily approved a class action settlement in General Mill Supply Co. v. Great Lakes Water Authority ("GLWA") and the City of Detroit (the "City"), a lawsuit challenging IWC Charges imposed by GLWA and the City on certain types of non-residential sewer users throughout Metro Detroit since 2013. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff contends that: (a) the IWC Charges were unlawful taxes and (b) the IWC Charges are unlawful because they were excessive. The principal terms of the Settlement are as follows: GLWA will create a Settlement Fund (the "Settlement Fund") in the amount of Eleven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($11,500,000.00) in order to resolve the claims of the Class. The amount of the Settlement Fund remaining after payment of attorneys' fees and costs will be distributed to the Class pursuant to a refund process. Persons and businesses (other than a small number of "Significant Industrial Users") who paid the IWC Charges between July 18, 2013 and June 30, 2023 will be able to claim refunds based upon the amount of IWC Charges they paid during that period of time as a percentage of the total amount of IWC Charges paid during that time by all Class Members who submit valid claims. If the Court finally approves the Settlement, GLWA and the City will be released from any claims arising out of the IWC Charges through the date of final approval. Greg Hanley, lead counsel for the Class, stated that: "we believe that this settlement, reached after 5 years of litigation and 8 mediation sessions with a very experienced mediator, is fair and reasonable for all involved. The settlement provides cold hard cash to persons and businesses who paid the IWC Charges over the last ten years and who submit valid claims." Hanley added, "now that the Court has preliminarily approved the settlement, we will be sending notices out to Class Members informing them of the terms of the settlement and instructing them how to submit claims. It is very important that the Class Members submit those claims by January 24, 2024. Otherwise, they will not be able to get a refund." The Court will hold a Zoom hearing on February 23, 2024 at 2 p.m. to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved. Class members seeking additional information (including claim forms) should go to www.iwcsettlement.com or www.kickhamhanley.com. About Kickham Hanley: Kickham Hanley is a "boutique" law firm based in Royal Oak, Michigan specializing in commercial litigation, business and real estate transactions, and real estate tax appeals. The Firm also specializes in complex class actions challenging various governmental fees and charges. Through successful litigation, since 2012, the Firm has returned over $100 million in refunds and benefits to over 160,000 citizens who have been overcharged by their local governments. Contacts Greg Hanley ghanley@kickhamhanley.com [GN] GRIDSUM HOLDING: Investors Seek $4.5MM Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that that benefits class of investors who acquired ADS after 2016 debut Gridsum Holding Inc. and a class of investors asked a judge to approve a $4.5 million deal to settle a five-year-old lawsuit alleging the software company made misleading statements about its accounting and taxes related to a 2016 initial public offering. The settlement would resolve allegations that Gridsum and three top executives misrepresented company's revenue and assets while understating expenses and losses in disclosures filed after the IPO, according to the motion for preliminary approval filed Dec. 1 in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Mohammad Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Business Machines Corporation. The case is styled as Khalid Mohammad, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. International Business Machines Corporation, Progress Software Corporation, IPSWITCH, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-12909 (D. Mass., Nov. 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Recovery/Enforcement Contract for Federal Election Commission. The International Business Machines Corporation -- http://www.ibm.com/-- nicknamed Big Blue, is an American multinational technology corporation headquartered in Armonk, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. INTERNATIONAL UNION: Prosser Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Union of Police Association, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Prosser, and all others similarly situated v. International Union of Police Association, IUPA d/b/a National Police And Troopers Association, IUPA d/b/a NPTA John and Jane Does 1 through 50, Case No. 23JE-CC01065 (Mo. 23rd Judicial Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty., Oct. 31, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. The International Union of Police Associations -- http://www.iupa.org/-- is a North American police union, and is chartered as a national union that represents law enforcement and support personnel with the AFL–CIO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin V. Butler, Esq. 1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220 Des Peres, MO 63131 INTERNATIONAL UNION: Prosser Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. International Union of Police Associations AFL CIO, International Union of Police Associations, d/b/a National Police and Troopers Association, John and Jane Does 1 through 50 International Union of Police Associations, d/b/a National Police and Troopers Association, Case No. 23JE-CC01065 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Oct. 31, 2023), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. The Defendant's IUPA, NPTA and Does offer a service where they harass individuals for non-tax-deductible donations. The Defendant's IUPA, NPTA and Does uses robocalling and artificial intelligence automated systems to make outbound telemarketing calls to thousands, if not millions of consumers across U.S., to harass and annoy consumers to give non-tax deductible donations for police officers and their equipment, and to help fallen officers and their families, when in reality, the lion share of the donations go directly to marketing firms and call centers for the purpose of generating more non-tax deductible donations. By doing so, the Defendant's IUPA, NPTA and Does violate the provisions of the Missouri No Call List and Telemarketing prohibitions and it violated the TCPA when it contacted numbers on the Missouri and National Do Not Call Registries without their express written consent. The Defendants have caused Plaintiff and Class Members to suffer injuries as a result of placing unwanted robotic, Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems ("ATDS") and artificial intelligence telephonic calls to their private residential telephones. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's IUPA, NPTA and Does unlawful telemarketing calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in this District. International Union of Police Associations AFL CIO., International Union of Police Associations AFL CIO d/b/a National Police and Trooper Association ("IUPA" and "NPTA") is a purported police union and the NPTA is touted as a "special project of the IUPA" and lead generator for non-tax-deductible donations.[BN] The Plaintiff is a represented by: Edwin V. Butler, Esq. BUTLER LAW GROUP, LLC 1650 Des Peres Rd., Suite 220 St. Louis, MO 63131 Phone: (314) 504-0001 Email: edbutler@butlerlawstl.com JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE: Heinz Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Heinz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00925 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 29, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12897-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Federal Trade Commission Act. Jackson National Life Insurance Company -- http://www.jackson.com/ -- is a U.S. company that provides annuities for retail investors and fixed income products for institutional investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC (MI) 6905 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Brandon C. Hubbard, Esq. Maureen J. Moody, Esq. Nolan J. Moody, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC (LANSING) 123 W Allegan St., Ste. 900 Lansing, MI 48933-1816 Phone: (517) 487-4724 Fax: (844) 670-6009 Email: bhubbard@dickinsonwright.com mmoody@dickinsonwright.com nmoody@dickinsonwright.com - and - John F. LaSalle, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 446-2300 Email: jlasalle@bsfllp.com - and - Scott R. Knapp, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC (GRAND RAPIDS) 200 Ottawa Ave., NW, Ste. 1000 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Phone: (517) 371-1730 Email: sknapp@dickinsonwright.com JCPENNEY OPCO LLC: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCPenney OpCo LLC. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JCPenney OpCo LLC doing business as: JCPenney, Case No. 0:23-cv-03647-JWB-TNL (D. Minn., Nov. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Penney OpCo LLC, doing business as JCPenney and often abbreviated JCP -- http://www.jcpenney.com/-- is an American department store chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com KFC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Meal Breaks ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Livingstone, writing for 9Now, reports that a class action lawsuit has been launched against fast food giant KFC over claims it did not provide adequate breaks to some employees. The claim has been filed in the Federal Court, with Shine Lawyers and the Retail and Fast Food Worker's Union (RAFFWU) alleging KFC failed to give employees their paid 10 minute breaks when working shifts that were over four hours. Former KFC employee, Lily O'Sullivan is one of the many who have come forward to complain about how they were treated during their time working for the company and told Today it's important, particularly for young staff, that they're all aware and involved in their rights as workers. "They're some of lowest paid, overworked and really hard done by people in this country that I think we should all be given a fair go," Lily said. "Anyone that's ever worked in a fast-food joint knows that it's not a glamorous job and it's definitely a pretty hard job when your manager won't abide by the breaks that they're supposed to be giving you." According to a statement from the joint head of class actions, KFC workers are entitled to a paid 10-minute break after four hours of work and a second paid break after eight hours "pursuant to the various industrial instruments under which they are employed". Shine Lawyers representative, Hadi Boustani, told Today it is too early to speculate how much compensation claimants are looking for, but based on what he has seen -- it will likely be substantial. "It's claiming compensation for the value of the unpaid breaks, as well as the stress that was suffered by these workers for not having an opportunity to have an appropriate rest when working shifts over four hours," he said. Today reached out to KFC about the class action, who provided us with the following response: "KFC Australia takes all obligations under the Fair Work Act and KFC National Enterprise Agreement very seriously, including the obligation to allow employees to take the paid rest breaks they are entitled to," the KFC spokesperson said. "We will be responding to the claim made in the Federal Court in due course." [GN] KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Allowed to File Documents Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANDERY SANCHEZ, LOUISE KNUDSON, ANDREA REIHER-ODOM, AMBER WITT, MARK TRESTON, MARGARET RITZLER, HANK HERBER, LINDA WILBUR, THOMAS ROCCO, JERRY DUBOSE, APRIL FISHER, AND TEWANA NELSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order that the following documents may be filed under seal: -- Exhibit CC -- Exhibit DD -- Exhibit FF -- Exhibit II -- Exhibit JJ -- Exhibit KK -- Exhibit UU -- Exhibit VV -- Exhibit WW -- Exhibit XX -- Exhibit YY -- Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification; and -- Second Declaration of Joshua Markovits in Support of Class Certification. Kia operates as an automobile dealer. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RbsGG0 at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Parents Renew Class Action Over Teething Wafers ---------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that parents seek three state classes as well as a nationwide class Parents alleging Kroger Co. and Fred Meyer Inc. knowingly sold teething wafers with elevated levels of toxic metals like mercury and arsenic filed an amended proposed class action complaint. The US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio said in September that the parents didn't properly plead their claims since they didn't specify which state laws applied to their claims. In their amended complaint, the parents brought claims under Ohio common law for the national class and Texas, Indiana, and Washington consumer protection laws. [GN] LELAND STANFORD: Appeals Court Orders in Hines Suit to 5th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX STAMOS, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders entered in the lawsuit entitled Jill Hines, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alex Stamos, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00187-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged close collaboration with federal, state, and local government officials to monitor and censor disfavored viewpoints on social media. This government-private censorship consortium tramples on the First Amendment rights, privacy interests, and business expectations of millions of Americans, suit says. The Plaintiffs bring claims for civil rights conspiracy and deprivation of rights under color of state law under 42 U.S. Code, tortious interference with contractual and business relationships, and breach of duty. On Aug. 14, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Class claims, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Terry A. Doughty. On Oct. 26, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to stay, which the Court denied as moot through an Order entered by Judge Doughty on Nov. 27, 2023. The case is administratively closed until the appeal has reached a final determination. The appellate case is captioned Hines v. Stamos, Case No. 23-30826, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on November 20, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JILL HINES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gene Patrick Hamilton, Esq. AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION 611 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 964-3721 - and - Julianna Petchak Parks, Esq. LANGLEY PARKS, L.L.C. 4444 Viking Drive Bossier City, LA 71111 Telephone: (318) 383-6422 - and - Dean John Sauer, Esq. JAMES OTIS LAW GROUP, L.L.C. 13321 N. Outer Forty Road Saint Louis, MO 63017 Telephone: (314) 562-0031 Defendants-Appellants ALEX STAMOS, et al. are represented by: James A. Brown, Esq. LISKOW & LEWIS, A.P.L.C. 701 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 556-4116 - and - Elisabeth S. Theodore, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, L.L.P. 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5891 - and - Daniel J. Dunne, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, L.L.P. 401 Union Street Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 839-4300 - and - Alex Benjamin Rothenberg, Esq. GORDON, ARATA, MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, MCCOLLAM, DUPLANTIS & EAGAN, L.L.C. 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 679-9826 - and - Marie Bussey-Garza, Esq. DLA PIPER, L.L.P. (US) 1650 Market Street 1 Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (210) 656-3315 - and - Camala Elizabeth Capodice, Esq. IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART MOORE & DANIELS, L.L.C. 400 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 310-2100 - and - Jon Keith Guice, Esq. HAMMONDS, SILLS, ADKINS, GUICE, NOAH & PERKINS, L.L.P. 1500 N. 19th Street Monroe, LA 71201 Telephone: (318) 324-0101 - and - Andrew Burns Johnson, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, L.L.P. 1819 5th Avenue, N. 1 Federal Place Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-8295 - and - Alfred Paul LeBlanc, Jr., Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P. 400 Convention Street II City Plaza Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 376-0267 LENOVO INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Augustine Due April 2, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OPHELIA AUGUSTINE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02027-L-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings as follows: -- The deadline for Defendant to respond to Jan. 10, 2024 Plaintiff's discovery requests is: -- Any motion to join other parties, to amend Dec. 27, 2023 the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed no later than: -- Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, March 1, 2024 but class discovery must be completed by: -- The Plaintiff must file a motion for class April 2, 2024 certification by: -- All fact discovery shall be completed by Sept. 20, 2024 all parties no later than: -- All expert discovery shall be completed by Dec. 20, 2024 all parties no later than: -- Except for motions in limine, all pretrial Jan. 31, 2025 motions must be filed no later than: -- A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be March 21, 2025 conducted on: Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TfL5Ej at no extra charge.[CC] LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Gibbs Files Bid for Default Judgment -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY GIBBS, TOBY HOY, and SHARON MCCULLAGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIVEFREE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC., d/b/a MEDIBUTTON, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00170-REP (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs file a motion for Default judgment, motion for class certification, and motion for leave to conduct limited discovery and memoranda in support. The Defendant had ample notice of this lawsuit and willfully passed on its opportunity to defend itself against the well-pleaded allegations at issue. The claims of Plaintiffs and the Classes arise from a uniform course of conduct-Defendant places prerecorded voice calls to reach a large number of consumers. Common issues predominate, and the claims are subject to common proof. Should this case proceed to trial, the Defendant would be unable to raise meaningful, individualized evidence. Instead, the answers to common questions of law and fact would be the same for all class members. In short, there is no evidence that Defendant treated any class member in a divergent manner. Thus, the common issues of law and fact predominate, justifying certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). The case illustrates the classic case in which a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient adjudication. Plaintiff is seeking statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA, which amounts to $500 per violation. The case challenges MediButton's serial violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) -- specifically, its bar against making unauthorized prerecorded calls to cellphones and its requirement that callers honor do not call requests. The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on April 11, 2023, and obtained service on the Defendant on June 1, 2023. The Plaintiff also seeks to certify two classes of similarly-situated individuals defined to include: Prerecorded No Consent Class: "All persons in the United States who (1) Defendant, or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant, called; (2) on the person's telephone; (3) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products and services; (4) using the same pre-recorded voice technology that was used to call Plaintiffs; and (5) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call Plaintiffs. DNC Registry Class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of the Defendant) called more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the person’s telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason Defendant called Plaintiffs, and (5) for whom Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claim they supposedly obtained prior express written consent to text Plaintiffs, or (b) they did not obtain prior express written consent." The Defendant is a corporation headquartered in Pocatello, Idaho that sells medical alert devices to consumers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RqH6mY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com LIVEPERSON INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Dec. 4 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired LivePerson, Inc. ("LivePerson" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LPSN) securities between May 10, 2022 and March 16, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's disclosure controls and procedures contained a material weakness; (ii) accordingly, the Company maintained deficient internal controls over its financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the Company's third quarter 2022 financial statements failed to disclose the suspension of WildHealth's Medicare reimbursements in connection with the Program and the resulting negative impact on the Company's future revenues; and (iv) accordingly, the Company had overstated its future financial position and/or prospects. On February 28, 2023, the Company revealed that, as a result of the Company's acquisition of WildHealth, "[LivePerson] requires more time to perform additional review and testing of revenue recognition with respect to a recently discontinued WildHealth program, for which Medicare reimbursement is suspended pending further governmental review, and to complete its in-process review of internal controls and procedures." On this news, the price of the Company's stock fell more than 14%, according to the complaint. On March 6, 2023, the Company disclosed that "the referenced review of WildHealth revenue is anticipated to affect fourth quarter 2022 revenue attributable to WildHealth's participation in a Medicare demonstration program, due to suspension in November 2022 of Medicare reimbursements under the program and pending further governmental review." On this news, the price of the Company's stock fell nearly 7%. On March 16, 2023, the Company revealed that "due to certain control deficiencies which aggregated to a material weakness in the Company's internal control over financial reporting . . ., our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of December 31, 2022" and "[t]he control deficiencies, which in aggregate constitute a material weakness, were identified in connection with the Company's previously disclosed review of certain transactions related to its subsidiary WildHealth." On this news, the price of the Company's stock fell nearly 58%. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of LivePerson should contact the Firm prior to the January 30, 2024 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] LIVEPERSON INC: Damri Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOAM DAMRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVEPERSON, INC., ROB LOCASCIO, and JOHN COLLINS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10517 (S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2023) alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks remedies under under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired LivePerson securities between May 10, 2022 and March 16, 2023, both dates inclusive. Among other things, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, throughout the class period, made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations, and prospects. In LivePerson's Q3 2022 financial statements, the Defendants failed to disclose the suspension of WildHealth's Medicare reimbursements in connection with the Medicare demonstration program related to COVID-19 testing, the Plaintiff alleges. Headquartered in New York, LivePerson delivers mobile and online messaging solutions through Conversational Artificial Intelligence. In February 2022, the company acquired WildHealth, Inc., a precision medicine service which purportedly leverages advanced machine learning to combine DNA analysis, biometrics, microbiome testing and phenotypic data to provide people with a blueprint for truly optimized health and a maximized health span. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Jacob Sabo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACOB SABO 22a Mazzeh Street Tel-Aviv, Israel Telephone: (+972) 39070770 LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Scheduling Conference Extended to Jan. 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD WALTERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. (D/B/A/ LENSCRAFTERS), an Ohio corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-01099-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order re joint stipulation to continue Rule 26(f) scheduling conference currently set for December 14, 2023, and extend deadline to file motion for class certification: -- The Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference is continued from December 14, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10D, to January 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10D. -- The Parties shall review and comply with: (a) the court's Civil Standing Order [12], including on the issue of timely filing the Joint Rule 26(f) Report, and (b) the court's Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference [13], including the requirements of the contents of the Joint Rule 26(f) Report to be filed. The filing deadline for the motion for class certification shall be calculated from the continued date in accordance with the Court’s Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference. Luxottica designs, manufactures and distributes fashion, luxury, sports and performance eyewear. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RsPCSy at no extra charge.[CC] M/V HARVEY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in UPRC Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Union Pacific Railroad Company v. M/V Harvey SBISA et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01325-MMM-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. M/V Harvey is a vessel sailing under the flag of USA. A copy of the Court's standing order dated Nov. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NhIlCz at no extra charge.[CC] MAJOR ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 1, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Foote, v. Major Energy Services LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00414-JL-TSM (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: -- Close of fact discovery: March 12, 2025 -- Close of class certification July 1, 2024 fact discovery: -- Close of class certification Sept. 12, 2024 expert discovery: -- Plaintiff's expert disclosure: Jan. 13, 2025 -- Defendant's expert disclosure: Feb. 13, 2025 -- Close of expert discovery: March 12, 2025 -- Motion for class certification: Nov. 1, 2024 Major Energy operates as an energy service company. The Company supplies natural gas and electricity to residential and commercial sectors. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rpeaf6 at no extra charge.[CC] ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Must Submit Expert Reports by Jan. 18, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOCK v. ME&I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Pa., Filed Jan. 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order dismissing motion to quash without prejudice and setting further deadlines. -- All further productions to all parties Dec. 19, 23 are to be completed on or before: -- Furthermore, the deadline for Defendants Jan. 18, 2024 to submit expert reports as to class certification is extended to and including: The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.[CC] MEDICINE MAN: Fowler FLSA Suit Mediation Set for Feb. 1, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------- Medicine Man Technologies 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 14, 2023, that the mediation for Fowler FLSA class suit is tentatively set for February 1, 2024. On August 11, 2023, Justin Fowler, a budtender in the Company’s Cottonwood R. Greenleaf location in New Mexico, filed a wage and hour case as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and as a class action under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA) against the Company, Schwazze New Mexico, LLC and R. Greenleaf Organics (collectively "the Company") on behalf of himself and similarly situated budtenders employed by the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company's pooling and allocation of tips violated federal and state law. The Company denies all of Plaintiff's allegations. To date, Plaintiff has joined 13 Opt-in Plaintiffs, of which two are former employees at one of the Company's Colorado locations. The parties are presently engaged in early discovery with a mediation tentatively set for February 1, 2024. If mediation fails, the Company intends to vigorously defend the allegations. It is not possible at this time reasonably to assess the final outcome of this litigation or reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to this litigation. If the Company was not to prevail in final, non-appealable determinations of this litigation, the impact is not anticipated to be material. Medicine Man Technologies, Inc., provides cultivation consulting services for cannabis growing technologies and methodologies. The company also provides licensing and seminar services. In addition, it engages in retail operations of cannabis products. The company was founded in 2014 and is based in Denver, Colorado. META PLATFORMS: User Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Portions ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the User Plaintiffs, Advertiser Plaintiffs, and Meta Platforms, Inc. submit an omnibus motion to seal certain portions of the Parties' class certification, Daubert briefing, and supporting documents, as set forth herein and in the supporting declarations. This omnibus motion is submitted on behalf of all Parties for the purpose of judicial administrative convenience and clarity. The Parties take no position on each other’s requests. User and Advertiser Plaintiffs filed motions to certify their respective classes on September 15, 2023. Meta opposed those motions on October 13, 2023. User and Advertiser Plaintiffs filed replies in support on November 3, 2023. Advertiser Plaintiffs filed a corrected reply on November 4, 2023. Meta requests that the Court seal seven categories of non-public information: (1) employee identifying information, including email addresses and phone numbers; (2) business dealings with third parties, including details of negotiation strategies or specific deal terms; (3) confidential financial data or information; (4) confidential pricing data or information; (5) descriptions of technical functionality of products and systems; (6) internal research or analysis on user, transaction, or app performance, including proprietary methods for conducting that research or analysis; and (7) confidential business strategies, including internal analyses or discussions of in-development or unreleased products, features, or future plans. Meta's proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to cover only documents or portions of documents falling within these seven categories that courts regularly recognize as sealable material. The specific items to be sealed, and associated reasons for sealing, are listed in the Declaration of Amrish Acharya. Consumer Plaintiffs seek to seal a very limited amount of information in the transcripts of the named plaintiffs, and the deposition of Dr. Economides. Meta specializes in online social networking services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gnagx3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Kyle J. Pozan, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com kjpozan@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com - and - Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Claire D. Hausman, Esq. Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq. Michelle Schmit, Esq. Manisha M. Sheth, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com clairehausman@quinnemanuel.com brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com - and - Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Henry Kelston, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. Patrick J. McGahan, Esq. Michael P. Srodoski, Esq. Hal D. Cunningham, Esq. Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq. Patrick J. Rodriguez, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com pmcgahan@scott-scott.com msrodoski@scott-scott.com hcunningham@scott-scott.com dbrockwell@scott-scott.com prodriguez@scott-scott.com - and - Keith J. Verrier, Esq. Austin B. Cohen, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: kverrier@lfsblaw.com acohen@lfsblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. David Z. Gringer, Esq. Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq. Ryan Chabot, Esq. Paul Vanderslice, Esq. Ari Holtzblatt, Esq. Molly M. Jennings, Esq. Michaela P. Sewall, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com MGM RESORTS: Albrigo Suit Transferred to D. Nevada -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Laura Willis Albrigo, Anita Johnson, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MGM Resorts International, Case No. 3:23-cv-01797 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Nov. 30, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01981-RFB-EJY to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. MGM Resorts International -- https://www.mgmresorts.com/en.html -- is an American global hospitality and entertainment company operating destination resorts in Las Vegas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Maryland, Ohio, and New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. LINER GRODE STEIN YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE REGERSTREIF & TAYLOR 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503 Phone: (310) 500-3500 MHM HEALTH: Lewis Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC f/k/a MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00228-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for leave to file Exhibits under seal. The Plaintiffs seek to rely upon documents designated by MHM as confidential pursuant to the agreed protective order entered by the Court. The Plaintiffs file this motion under seal in order given that the documents were designated by MHM pursuant to the protective order. By doing so, Plaintiffs seek to facilitate and expedite the handling of their motions and do not necessarily concede the documents were properly designated as confidential. MHM provides medical and behavioral healthcare services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N9fJLA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. Sammy O. Homsi, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza. Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law sammy@parmet.law - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com AMurthy@forthepeople.com MICROSOFT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Saeedy Due Jan. 31, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOAH SAEEDY, VISHAL SHAH, TINA WILKINSON, and M.S., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01104-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order setting the following deadlines and briefing schedule: Deadline Date Joinder of Parties Deadline April 8, 2024 Amended Pleadings April 8, 2024 Deadline for Parties to Serve Any Nov. 1, 2024 Expert Report(s) Relevant for Class Certification Deadline to complete discovery on class December 31, 2024 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery) Deadline for Any Rebuttal Expert Report(s) January 10, 2025 Relevant for Class Certification Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for January 31, 2025 Class Certification Deadline for Defendant to file Response to February 28, 2025 Motion for Class Certification Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply in March 21, 2025 Support of Motion for Class Certification Microsoft is an American multinational technology corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington. A copy of the Court's minute order dated Nov. 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TdEx92 at no extra charge.[CC] MIDFIRST BANK: Strother Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Andrew Strother, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MidFirst Bank, Case No. 5:23-cv-00995 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 29, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12898-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for Account Receivable. MidFirst Bank -- http://www.midfirst.com/-- is a privately owned financial institution based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony J Hendricks, Esq. Timila S Rother, Esq. William H Hoch, III, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC Braniff Building 324 N Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 239-5411 Fax: (405) 272-5932 Email: Anthony.Hendricks@crowedunlevy.com timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com will.hoch@crowedunlevy.com - and - Jason K. Fagelman, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 855-8120 Email: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com MIDJOURNEY INC: Artists' Lawyers File Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- Adam Schrader, writing for Artnet, reports that the lawyers representing a group of artists who filed a class action lawsuit against three A.I. companies -- Midjourney Inc, DeviantArt Inc, and Stability A.I. -- have filed an amended complaint to address concerns of the court after a federal judge dismissed some of their claims in October. The October decision by U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick was a blow to the three artists who had originally filed the lawsuit: Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz. At the time, Orrick allowed one count of copyright infringement to move forward against Stability A.I. for allegedly copying the 16 works for which Andersen had registered her copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office, considered the core claim of the lawsuit. But he had dismissed several other claims of alleged infringement of works by McKernan and Ortiz, allowing the artists time to amend the complaint. The chance to amend a complaint can allow a plaintiff to add additional points for consideration and even address any concerns of the court. In this case, the court had identified specific topics where it sought more details of the allegations made. "We believe that the amended complaint addresses the court's requests," lawyers Joseph Saveri and Matthew Butterick said in an emailed statement to Artnet News. "The amended complaint… shows the ways in which defendants' A.I. image generators copy plaintiffs' work, and how the output of these generators is used to compete with or supplant the plaintiffs' work in the marketplace." Indeed, the entire lawsuit has been reworked and rewritten, jumping from a 46-page complaint filed in January to 94 pages -- and over 450 when including published evidence exhibits showing the alleged copyright infringement. Much of the additions are technical, pertaining to descriptions of the machine-learning process and precisely how the works of the artists were used to train the models at question. Perhaps the first changes immediately noticeable on the amended complaint is the addition of seven new plaintiffs, identified as Hawke Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald Brom, Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye and Adam Ellis. "Ok this is huge! I'm officially joining @kortizart @scribbles_sarah @Kelly_McKernan as plaintiff in our class action lawsuit with other awesome plaintiffs @GeraldBrom, Greg Machess, @zemotion, Julia Kaye Adam Ellis and Hawke Southworth!" Rutkowski said on Twitter, confirming the new plaintiffs. Zhang, a freelance artist and photographer, also issued a public statement on their website and said the amended complaint "breaks down the tech" behind image generative A.I. models and copyright in a way that is easy to understand, gives a clearer picture on what the lawsuit is about, and "sets the record straight" on some misleading headlines that have been in the press this past year. "I am very grateful that we now have photography represented in this lawsuit, because gen AI models are heavily trained on the works of our industry, from hobbyists to professionals alike, and I believe we should be heard too," Zhang said. "To my fellow sisters and brothers in creative industries affected by this exploitation of our work, I hope this case can continue to give voice to the countless thousands of us, and set a legal precedent that makes things right." The amended complaint also adds a new defendant: Runway A.I., the company that trained Stable Diffusion 1.5. "Though the defendants claim to be selling access to A.I. image products, what they're really selling is copyright infringement as a service. The scale of this misappropriation is staggering and unprecedented, with violations of law happening at every phase: the gathering and copying of the dataset, the training and deployment of the model, and the output images," the amended complaint reads. "Worst of all, the defendants hold out their A.I. image products as being able to create substantially similar substitutes for the very works they were trained on -- either specific training images, or images that imitate the trade dress of particular artists -- including plaintiffs." [GN] MILLIMAN INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 25, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON MORRIS and LARS F. BRAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a INTELLISCRIPT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00446-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting stipulated motion extending case management schedule deadlines as follows: Event Former Deadline New Deadline Deadline for fact discovery Jan. 12, 2024 Apr. 11, 2024 Plaintiff's expert report(s) Feb. 9, 2024 May 9, 2024 served on defendant Defendant's expert report(s) Mar. 8, 2024 June 6, 2024 served on plaintiff Plaintiff's rebuttal report(s) Apr. 5, 2024 July 5, 2024 served on defendant Plaintiff's motion for class Apr. 26, 2024 July 25, 2024 certification Defendant's response to motion May 24, 2024 Aug. 22, 2024 for class certification Plaintiff's reply in support June 7, 2024 Sept. 5, 2024 of class certification Milliman is an international actuarial and consulting firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rr0Ir9 at no extra charge.[CC] MISSISSIPPI: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by June 30, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC WALLACE, et al., v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00516-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge LaKeysha Greer Isaac entered class certification scheduling order as follows: -- The parties will exchange initial Jan. 23, 2023 disclosures regarding class certification issues pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 on or prior to: -- The deadline to file any motions to Feb. 2, 2024 amend the pleadings or to join additional parties is: -- The deadline for the Defendants to March 4, 2024 respond to Plaintiffs amended complaint, if any, is: -- Expert witnesses for class certification, if any, shall be disclosed, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26: for Plaintiffs' side, by: Aug. 30, 2024 for Defendants' side by: Dec. 30, 2024 -- Discovery must be completed by: March 3, 2025 -- Daubert motions challenging the April 28, 2025 Parties' class certification experts must be filed by: -- Plaintiffs' side motion for June 30, 2025 class certification and memorandum shall be filed by: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Y2ghE at no extra charge.[CC] MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: Gardner Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer Gardner, et al., v. Missoula County, et al., Case No. 9:23-cv-00146-DLC (D. Mont.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of prisoners. Missoula County is located in the State of Montana. The county comprises the Missoula, MT Metropolitan Statistical Area. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R8ztA7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Court Narrows Claims in Rodriguez -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, NEGEEN MIRREGHABIE, and CHRISTOPHER JENNEN, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. MONDELĒZ GLOBAL LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00057-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order: (1) Granting in part and Denying in part the Defendant's Request for judicial notice; (2) Granting in part and Denying in part the Defendant's Motion to dismiss; and (3) Denying the Defendant's motion to stay proceedings. In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant MDLZ deceptively marketed and sold dark chocolate bars containing unsafe levels of lead and cadmium. Mondelez is a subsidiary of Mondelez International, Inc., a multinational confectionery, food, and beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47GFjzJ at no extra charge.[CC] MSL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Gevara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSL Community Management, LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Ann Gevara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MSL Community Management, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0012611 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 27, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." MSL Community Management, LLC doing business as MBK Senior Living -- https://www.mbkseniorliving.com/ -- is a Retirement home in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Gross, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 2074 Calabasas, CA 91302-3430 Phone: 818-924-2115 Email: Joseph@frontierlawcenter.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK et al v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00501 (D. Or., Filed April 5, 2021), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Motion for class certification is due by: Dec. 22, 2023 -- Response to motion for class certification Jan. 26, 2024 is due by: -- Amended pleadings are due 45 days following the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for certification. -- Fact discovery material to individual claims is to be completed 120 days following the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- Dispositive motions are due 45 days following the close of fact discovery material to individual claims. ADR report is due 60 days following the Court's ruling on any dispositive motions. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition. Multnomah County is Oregon's most densely populated county and home to Portland, Oregon's largest city.[CC] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Appeal in Antitrust Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hiltzik, writing for Dominion Post, reports that there can be few American public institutions more widely detested than the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The NCAA spent decades promoting the ideal of the amateur "student-athlete," barring football and basketball players from compensation while their coaches and university athletic directors collected millions of dollars a year. Its disciplinary system, rife with favoritism and inconsistencies, is honored by member universities more in the breach than the observance. And when it doesn't get its way, it hasn't been shy about bullying -- not that it always works, as when it threatened in 2019 to ban California universities from championship games if the Legislature voted to allow payments to those student-athletes. As it happens, the very issue covered by that legislation -- compensation for the use of college players' "names, images and likenesses," or NIL for short -- is at the center of what the NCAA implies could be an extinction event for the collegiate sports system as we know it today, if not for the NCAA itself. The NCAA's hand-wringing has come about because federal Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland has certified an antitrust lawsuit naming the association and its five most important regional sports conferences, the so-called Power Five, as a class action. Wilken designated three classes of plaintiffs: current and former men's football and basketball players in the Power Five conferences, current and former women's basketball players in those conferences, and all other current and former athletes who competed on Division I teams prior to July 1, 2021, and have received NIL payments from third parties under the NCAA's temporary suspension of NIL payment restrictions. The athletes who brought the case have asked for $1.4 billion in damages, which under antitrust law would be trebled if they win, for a total of $4.2 billion. A judgment of that magnitude, the NCAA says in an appeal brief, "would necessitate curtailing college sports programs across the country." It says it would face "intense pressure to settle," presumably on highly disadvantaged terms -- at least for the association, the athletic conferences and the administrators who have been running university programs on a business model dependent on paying athletes virtually nothing. "The hard work of college athletes," the plaintiffs observed in their lawsuit, "has translated into billion-dollar television deals, multi-million-dollar coaching salaries, extravagant facilities, and lucrative commercial licensing and sponsorship agreements" for the NCAA, its conferences and their executives. Now that the financial ground is shifting under the feet of the NCAA and the richest athletic programs, they're feeling the pain from the collapse of their franchise. The numbers tell the story. In recent years the Big Ten, Southeastern and Big 12 conferences signed multiyear television deals for football worth a total of more than $12 billion. In 2016, the NCAA renewed its contract with Turner Sports and CBS for broadcast rights to its men's basketball tournament for $8.8 billion over eight years. The lawsuit plaintiffs assert that more than 150 football and basketball coaches in the NCAA's elite Division I earn more than $1 million a year; the best-paid 25 football coaches collect an average of $5.2 million and the top 25 basketball coaches an average of $3.2 million. In fiscal 2021-22, NCAA President Mark Emmert earned nearly $3.3 million, according to NCAA disclosures. Emmert retired earlier this year, but it's a fair bet that the compensation of his successor, former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, will be in the same neighborhood. That should provide context to the NCAA's long drive to keep student players on a short financial leash, in order to preserve the impression that the players are merely amateurs, playing sports out of love for the game. The opening of the NIL spigot has provided a bounty for star college football and basketball athletes. Seven-figure NIL endorsement deals have been signed by marquee players, topped by USC basketball player Bronny James, the son of Lakers star LeBron James, for $5.9 million from Nike and Apple's Beats by Dre, among other brands. Other top players without gilded parentages are also receiving eye-popping deals. The NCAA's position that amateurism is crucial to maintaining fans' enthusiasm for college football and basketball has been under attack for the better part of a decade. In 2014, Wilken chipped away at the NCAA's ban on NIL compensation, in a landmark case launched in 2009 with former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon as lead plaintiff. Wilken recognized big-college sports as a business, not amateur competition. But her solution was to allow NCAA schools to set up trust funds of several thousand dollars per player per year to hold their shares of the licensing revenue they had earned until graduation. She rejected the plaintiffs' proposal to allow student-athletes to make commercial endorsements, because she accepts that the NCAA and its member schools should protect the students from "commercial exploitation." The NCAA had already sustained two blows in 2021. In June, the Supreme Court ruled narrowly, but unanimously, that the NCAA was subject to antitrust laws and that its restrictions on certain education-related benefits for athletes breached the laws. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh ridiculed the NCAA's argument that fans would abandon big-time football and basketball if they knew the players were getting paid. "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling the NCAA, perhaps detecting the writing on the wall, temporarily suspended its ban on NIL compensation while working out a system of new rules. The following September, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer A. Abruzzo issued a memo defining scholarship athletes at academic institutions as employees. Calling them "student-athletes" is legally a misclassification, Abruzzo said; in fact, she explicitly refused to accept the term in her memo, on the grounds that it had been coined chiefly "to avoid paying workers' compensation claims to injured athletes." The truth is that amateurism in college sports -- indeed, the very concept of the student-athlete -- has always been clothed in the rosy glow of myth. The meet generally regarded as the first intercollegiate athletic contest, the 1852 Harvard-Yale boat race on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire, was openly a profit-making event, sponsored by a railroad magnate conniving to gin up tourist interest in the lake and its environs. In that era, collegiate football was a commercial enterprise employing athletes for pay. That system prevailed until 1905, when 18 fatalities on the college gridiron provoked President Theodore Roosevelt to force Harvard, Yale and Princeton to codify rules aimed at protecting players from injury. Roosevelt's initiative gave birth to the NCAA. As one of its first acts, the NCAA outlawed payments, direct or indirect, to players, thereby defining players as amateurs. The NCAA rode that concept hard for more than a century. Its lawyers coined the term "student-athlete" in the 1950s, but since under-the-table payments still existed it was offered with a cynical wink. The NCAA is trying to hold back the tide on two fronts. In its appeal of Wilken's latest ruling, it is arguing that the judge was wrong to certify the three classes of plaintiffs. College players don't have the common characteristics needed for a class action, the NCAA asserts; nor would it be fair to apportion, say, revenues from a TV deal evenly among all players on a team. The NCAA's second front is on Capitol Hill. The association has been trying to persuade Congress to step in. In an appearance Oct. 17 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the NCAA's Baker asked the lawmakers to overrule state laws in 30 states governing NIL payment rights by enacting a federal law. More tellingly, Baker asked the senators to enact a law affirming that "student-athletes … are not employees of an institution" -- in other words, to overturn the NLRB's doctrine in a way that would stifle the earning rights of most players and eliminate such threats as unionization. "College sports are a uniquely powerful and beloved institution," Baker said. How often have we heard this before? It's a rare industry that doesn't come to Capitol Hill pleading that it's so special that it deserves a tailor-made system of laws and regulations. Baker may claim that his industry is unique, but he sounds exactly like every other business leader looking for a legal bailout. The NCAA is trapped in a morass of its own making. Its century-old business model has come face to face with 21st century realities, and it needs to deal with the world as it is, instead of trying to keep living in a world of its own. [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Action May Elevate Assisted Living Role ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Bonvissuto, writing for McKnight's Senior Living, reports that certification of a class-action lawsuit against New Hampshire's home- and community-based services waiver program could be the catalyst for elevating assisted living as a viable Medicaid option, according to one senior living organization. A federal judge certified a class-action lawsuit against the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services for placing recipients of its HCBS waiver program at "serious risk of unjustified institutionalization" by failing to ensure those services are provided. Choices for Independence, New Hampshire's Medicaid waiver program, provides HCBS to nearly 3,800 adults who would otherwise be Medicaid-eligible for nursing home care. Some assisted living providers provide HCBS to residents under the waiver program. A lawsuit against the program was filed in January 2021 in US District Court in New Hampshire by New Hampshire Legal Assistance, the Disability Rights Center-New Hampshire and the AARP Foundation. After initially denying a motion for class certification, Judge Paul J. Barbadoro ruled on Nov. 27 that there was evidence that hundreds of people could face "unjustified institutionalization" due to CFIs failure to ensure eligible individuals received eligible community-based long-term services and supports. Earlier this year, agencies that provide HCBS services through the CFI program -- including assisted living providers -- told lawmakers they could no longer afford to participate in the program without significant rate increases. State legislators passed a state budget in June that gave providers a 3% increase in Medicaid payments in July, with additional raises coming in January. But the groups filing the lawsuit said the increase would address only workforce shortage issues, and would not correct the program's shortcomings, including its failure to ensure CFI recipients receive approved services. The suit could shine a light on assisted living as a viable HCBS option, according to Brendan Williams, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Health Care Association. He told McKnight's Senior Living that too few providers are willing to take on Medicaid contracts because the "rates are just so terrible." "Too often, assisted living is treated as a middle child when it comes to home care and nursing homes -- it's the Jan Brady of long-term care," Williams said. And while the state made "solid progress" in the last legislative session on funding in home care, it only made "marginal progress" in improving funding for assisted living. "We really do need a game-changer when it comes to placing a greater priority on making assisted living an option for Medicaid residents," Williams said. "I hope that will emerge from this litigation." The state recently embarked on a gap analysis of its HCBS system to improve and promote community integration, independence and a robust system of LTSS for older adults and people living with disabilities. [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Must Face Class Action Over Nursing Home Program --------------------------------------------------------------- Annmarie Timmins, writing for Newhampshire Bulletin, reports that the Department of Health and Human Services was facing a lawsuit from two people who said the state had put them at severe risk of entering a nursing home by providing them less in-home care than it had deemed necessary. In one case, a 38-year-old woman with disabilities was receiving only a "small portion" of the 68 hours of weekly care the state had allotted her, according to the lawsuit. A federal judge has certified the case as a class-action lawsuit, pointing to evidence that there could be dozens, even hundreds of people who face the same risk of being institutionalized for the same reasons. The program at the center of the case is Choices for Independence, which provides nearly 3,800 Granite Staters who don't want to go into a nursing home the basic care and services that allow them to remain at home or in a small community setting. That care can include assistance with bathing, housekeeping, and cooking. In his ruling, Judge Paul Barbadoro defined the class as, "CFI Waiver participants who, during the pendency of this lawsuit, have been placed at serious risk of unjustified institutionalization because defendants, by act or omission, fail to ensure that the CFI participants receive the community-based long-term care services and supports . . . for which they have been found eligible and assessed to need." It was a significant victory for the advocacy groups, including New Hampshire Legal Assistance, the Disability Rights Center-NH, the AARP Foundation, and the law firm Nixon Peabody, that filed the case in the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire in January 2021. Barbadoro had previously rejected their request for class-action certification, citing insufficient evidence that the individual plaintiffs' experiences were typical of all CFI recipients. "It's not like we couldn't have still moved forward with the two individual plaintiffs, and the relief we could have gotten would have potentially had a systemic effect," said New Hampshire Legal Assistance attorney Cheryl Steinberg. "But this gives us a much broader ability to create a sense of relief for the whole class that will hopefully improve the service delivery." The CFI program made headlines this year when the agencies the state relies on to provide services told lawmakers they could no longer afford to continue the work without significant rate increases from the state. Those increases came in October and will help address the workforce shortage issue raised in the lawsuit. Without workers, services can't be provided. But, the rate increase won't address all the CFI program shortcomings alleged in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege the Department of Health and Human Services fails to sufficiently monitor and support the private agencies it licenses to plan and provide CFI services. While the department's regulations grant those agencies discretion in determining what services a person needs and how to meet those needs, the state is still ultimately responsible for ensuring that CFI clients get those approved services, Barbadoro wrote. Among the tasks given to the agencies is developing person-centered care plans that identify how care will be provided and the contingency plans if an assigned caregiver is unavailable. But, the department doesn't review the plans for completeness and, in some cases, can't because some agencies decline to share them, Barbadoro wrote. When an agency has too few staff to provide the required hours of care, the department does not "meaningfully assist" by monitoring which of its licensed providers may have availability, according to his order. The plaintiffs allege the department does not sufficiently track service gaps to know when a person is receiving fewer hours of care than approved. While Barbadoro found that the department has systems in place for identifying and responding to gaps, he said it needs to do more. For example, the department looks for gaps by comparing the number of approved care hours against the hours provided. But it does so at a high level, not the client level, making it impossible to know in real time which client is receiving too few services. The case is set to go to trial in March. Jennifer Eber, litigation director for Disability Rights Center-NH, described the day plaintiffs learned Barbadoro had certified the case as a class-action lawsuit as "hopeful." "With this decision, we can move forward with seeking change to the program so that it is managed in a way that does not leave CFI participants without the services that they need," she said in a statement. The Attorney General's Office, which represents state agencies in court, declined to comment on the case on Dec. 1 because it is pending. When Attorney General John Formella asked for an additional $7 million from the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee in August for increased litigation cases, this was one case he mentioned. Others included the hundreds of civil lawsuits filed by people who said they were abused as children while held at the Youth Development Center. [GN] NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Doe Suit Over Alleged Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York University, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10515-VSB-SN (S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2023) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that will prevent the New York University Law Review from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any person on account of that individual's race or sex, and to require colorblind and sex-neutral consideration of any application for membership or an editorial position on the law review in violation of the Title VI and Title IX. The Plaintiff is a first-year law student at NYU, and he intends to apply for law-review membership in the summer of 2024. NYU Law Review is an academic journal edited and operated by students at NYU Law School. The students select and edit the articles that the Law Review will publish, and they also select the students who serve as members and editors of the Law Review. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 686-3940 Facsimile: (512) 686-3941 E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law - and - Gene P. Hamilton, Esq. AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION 611 Pennsylvania Avenue SE #231 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 964-3721 E-mail: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org - and - Ronald A. Berutti, Esq. MURRAY-NOLAN BERUTTI LLC 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005-2205 Telephone: (212) 575-8500 E-mail: ron@murray-nolanberutti.com - and - Christopher Mills, Esq. SPERO LAW LLC 557 East Bay Street #22251 Charleston, SC 29413 Telephone: (843) 606-0640 E-mail: cmills@spero.law NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces ERISA Suit Over Employees' Fund Handling -------------------------------------------------------------- Nextera Energy, Inc. (NEE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that in September 2023, a participant in the NEE Employee Retirement Savings Plan, purportedly on behalf of the plan and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between September 25, 2016 and September 25, 2023 (Plan participants), filed a putative ERISA class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against NEE. The complaint alleges that NEE violated its fiduciary duties under the Plan by permitting a third-party administrative recordkeeper to charge allegedly excessive fees for the services provided and allegedly by allowing a large volume of plan assets to be invested in NEE common stock. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, equitable and monetary relief on behalf of the Plan and Plan participants. NextEra Energy, Inc. is an energy company with about 58 GW of generating capacity, revenues of over $18 billion in 2020, and about 14,900 employees throughout the US and Canada. NEXTERA ENERGY: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over SEC Non-disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nextera Energy, Inc. (NEE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that NEE, along with certain current and former executives, are the named defendants in a purported shareholder securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in June 2023 that seeks from the defendants unspecified damages allegedly resulting from alleged lack of disclosures and misstatements regarding NEE's legal and reputational risk related to campaign finance allegations and other political activities. The alleged class of plaintiffs are all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NEE securities between December 2, 2021 and February 1, 2023. NextEra Energy, Inc. is an energy company with about 58 GW of generating capacity, revenues of over $18 billion in 2020, and about 14,900 employees throughout the US and Canada. NEXTERA ENERGY: Sued Over Campaign Law Violations ------------------------------------------------- Nextera Energy, Inc. (NEE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that NEE, along with certain current and former executives and directors are the named defendants in purported shareholder derivative action lawsuits filed in the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida in July 2023 and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in October 2023 that seek from the defendants unspecified damages allegedly resulting from, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties and, in the latter case, violations of the federal securities laws, all purporting to relate to alleged campaign finance law violations and associated matters. NextEra Energy, Inc. is an energy company with about 58 GW of generating capacity, revenues of over $18 billion in 2020, and about 14,900 employees throughout the US and Canada. NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH: Houston Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeast Georgia Health System, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Keith Houston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northeast Georgia Health System, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00254-RWS (N.D. Ga., Nov. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Northeast Georgia Health System (NGHS) -- https://www.nghs.com/ -- is a not-for-profit community health system dedicated to improving the health and quality of life of the people of Northeast Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq. 600 Blakenham Court Johns Creek, GA 30022 Phone: (404) 276-7277 Email: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com NORTHWELL HEALTH: Kawa Orthodontics Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimile ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kawa Orthodontics LLP, a Florida limited liability partnership, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. NORTHWELL HEALTH LABORATORIES CORPORATION, NORTHWELL HEALTHCARE, INC., New York corporations, NORTHWELL LABORATORIES APEX PERSONNEL, LLC, a New York limited liability company, and NORTHWELL HEALTH MEDICAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 9:23-cv-81424-WPD (S.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2023), is brought challenging the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimile Advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (hereafter the "TCPA"). The restriction regarding unsolicited fax advertisements falls under "automated telephone equipment." The TCPA defines "unsolicited advertisement" as "any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise." The Defendants, or a person or entity acting on behalf of Defendants, in violation of the TCPA, sent Plaintiff an unsolicited fax advertisement September 18, 2023 (the "Fax"). The Fax advertises the commercial availability and/or quality of Defendants' property, goods, or services, namely, Defendants' mobile lab services. The Fax is a generic advertising template suitable for mass transmission to numerous recipients. On this basis, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, or persons and/or entities acting on behalf of Defendants, in violation of the TCPA, sent the same Fax on or about September 18, 2023, to the proposed Class. On information and belief, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have sent other unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the TCPA during the four years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. The Plaintiff alleges that this action is based upon a common nucleus of operative facts because the facsimile transmissions at issue were and are being done in the same or similar manner. This action is based on the same legal theory, namely, liability under the TCPA for sending unsolicited fax advertisements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Florida limited liability partnership. Northwell Health Laboratories Corporation and Northwell Healthcare, Inc., are New York corporations; Northwell Laboratories Apex Personnel, LLC, is a New York limited liability company; and Northwell Health Medical, Inc., is a Florida corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Phone: 847-368-1500 Fax: 847-368-1501 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com OASIS BAKERY: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oasis Bakery Collection, Inc. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Oasis Bakery Collection, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08828 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oasis Bakery Collection, Inc. -- https://www.oasisbreads.com/ -- is a Southern California's wholesale bakery for craft breads made by hand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com OLD NAVY: Faces Class Action in California Over AI Chatbots ----------------------------------------------------------- PYMNTS reports that there's a new legal question about artificial intelligence (AI) at the center of a recent federal lawsuit. Can AI engage in illegal wiretapping? The class-action suit, at the center of a report Sunday (Dec. 3) by CNBC, accuses Old Navy's chatbot of that exact crime by logging, recording and storing conversation. The lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California, claims that the chatbot "convincingly impersonates an actual human that encourages consumers to share their personal information." According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff says he spoke with what he thought was a human customer service rep at Old Navy. In reality, he was speaking with an AI chatbot who recorded the entire conversation. In addition, the suit claims that Old Navy illegally shares customer data with third parties without informing consumers or seeking permission. Reached by PYMNTS, Old Navy declined to comment. The CNBC report noted that dozens of similar suits have been filed in California against companies that include Home Depot, General Motors, Ford, and J.C. Penney, alleging unlawful recording of private online chat conversations, though not always involving AI. AI experts say the outcome of the suit will likely involve companies adding a warning label to tell customers their chatbots might record their conversations, similar to the "This call is being recorded for quality training purposes" messages played before customer service calls. However, the report adds that the suit showcases some pertinent privacy questions surrounding AI chatbots that may need to be answered before consumers trust AI. "One of the concerns about these tools is that we don't know very much about what data was actually used to train them," Irina Raicu, director of the Internet Ethics Program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, told CNBC. However, recent research by PYMNTS Intelligence shows that consumers are already fairly comfortable in trusting AI in their everyday lives. That research showed that 39% of consumers used voice technology built into their smartphones, 25% used a voice-enabled app on a mobile device, and 15% used the voice capabilities that come with their cars. And with the field consisting of a number of players building out AI, there might soon be a considerable range of activities we rely on this technology to carry out. "Picture a future, then, where one uses Alexa for commerce but Spotify to choose music or (possibly, hypothetically) order concert tickets, while those who are in thrall to the Apple ecosystem navigate through media and commerce with enhanced Siri capabilities," PYMNTS wrote. "Amazon said in September it updated its Alexa speaker with improved conversational features, underpinned by generative AI." [GN] POSTMEDS INC: Autry Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PostMeds, Inc. The case is styled as Russell Autry, Jacob Benjamin, Victoria Phillip, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PostMeds, Inc. doing business as: Truepill, Case No. 4:23-cv-06173-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 29, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. PostMeds, Inc., doing business as TruePill -- https://www.truepill.com/ -- provides online pharmacy delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0800 Fax: (619) 230-1874 Email: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Hakemi Sues Over Unsecured Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- AHMAD HAKEMI, MD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; ARIETIS HEALTH LLC; ANESTHESIA CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT, LP; AND NORTHSTAR ANESTHESIA OF MICHIGAN II, PC; Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01123 (M.D. Fla., December 3, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information seeking redress for their alleged unlawful conduct and claims for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services and applications involving MOVEit, Progress Software Corporation stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information on its MOVEit transfer services software that was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems or of its customers’ networks and systems. These security vulnerabilities existed as far back as 2021. On May 31, 2023, PSC reported a vulnerability in MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud (CVE-2023-34362) that could lead to escalated privileges and potential unauthorized access to the environment. PSC purportedly launched an investigation, alerted MOVEit customers of the issue and provided mitigation steps. Allegedly, the Russian cyber gang Clop took responsibility for the attack--which began on May 27, 2023--and began attempts to ransom and exploit data accessed from MOVEit, says the suit. Based in Massachusetts, PSC offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 3833 Central Ave. St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (813) 699-4056 E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Kristin A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com R L M K INC: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R L M K, INC., et al. The case is styled as Isiah Maldonado, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. R L M K, INC., Delph Enterprises, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-103985 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Nov. 30, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." R L M K, INC. is a corporate office in Visalia, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bevin E.A. Pike, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8010 Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com RENOVARO BIOSCIENCES: Continues to Defend Choi Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Renovaro Biosciences 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 14, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Choi securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 26, 2022, securities class action complaint, ( the "Chow Action") were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection with the Company's relationship with Serhat Gümrükcü and its commercial prospects. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On November 22, 2022, but the Chow action remains pending. The defendants did not respond to the complaint in the Manici action and have not yet responded to the complaint in the Chow action. The Company intends to contest this matter but expresses no opinion as to the likelihood of a favorable outcome. Renovaro Biosciences Inc. (NASDAQ: RENB) is a pre-clinical stage biotechnology company, engages in the research and development of pharmaceutical and biological products for the human treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and cancer in the United States. The company was formerly known as Enochian Biosciences, Inc. and changed its name to Renovaro Biosciences Inc. in August 2023. Renovaro Biosciences Inc. is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. ROBLOX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 3 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Class A common stock of Roblox Corporation (NYSE: RBLX) between March 10, 2021 and February 15, 2022, 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 26, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased Roblox class A common stock during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Roblox class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20661 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 26, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Roblox platform had insufficient content controls and lacked user spending restrictions; (2) these inadequate controls enabled younger Roblox users to play games with inappropriate content and make excessive, unauthorized Robux, Roblox's proprietary currency, purchases; (3) a material portion of Roblox's bookings and revenue growth was due to these excessive, unauthorized Robux purchases; (4) fourth quarter 2021 and 2022 bookings would be negatively impacted by Roblox's planned rollout of enhanced parental controls; and (5) based on the foregoing, Roblox's bookings and revenue growth was unsustainable throughout the class period. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Roblox class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20661 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] SECURTEST INC: Judge Tosses FCRA Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Ufonobong Umanah, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Securtest Inc.'s proposed settlement of a class representative's individual claims remains a stumbling block after Judge Richard Seeborg has preliminarily rejected a proposed class action settlement two times. Regmon Hawkins alleged he and 1,579 other class members didn't receive "appropriate written disclosures" for employment background checks under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The settlement proposed to Seeborg, of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, provided that Hawkins wouldn't receive $50,000 in resolution of his individual claims until the court approved a $100,000 class settlement. [GN] SELENE FINANCE: Dominguez Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practice ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICK S. DOMINGUEZ, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-06225 (N.D. Cal., December 1, 2023) arises from the Defendant's systematic use of unlawful and unfair debt collection practices to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Dominguez asserts that the Defendant's Final Letters contained empty threats of acceleration and foreclosure. These letters were allegedly intended to coerce and intimidate borrowers, including Plaintiff, into paying the entire default amount of the loan, says the suit. Selene is a servicer of mortgages for residential housing loans. It earns money based upon a percentage of the funds that it collects from consumers' mortgage payments as well as through the assessment of late fees and other penalties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com SOUTH BAY GUNITE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- DEMETRIO GARCIA, individually and for others similarly situated v. SOUTH BAY GUNITE INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-04511 (S.D. Tex., December 1, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from South Bay Gunite Inc. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Garcia worked for SBG as a finisher from approximately January 2021 until September 2023. Throughout his employment, SBG paid Garcia under its illegal piece rate pay scheme, paying him a set amount for each pool or spa he finished, and failed to pay him overtime when he worked more than 40 hours in a week. Based in Texas, SBG specializes in swimming pool construction. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Homeowners' Earthquake Class Action Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- Liz McDonald, writing for The Press, reports that an attempt to launch a class action potentially affecting up to 9500 homeowners with damage from the Canterbury earthquakes has been rejected by the High Court. The case was brought by Hoon Hay home owner Trevor Ressels over extra costs he says were not paid when a claim for repairs to his driveway and paths were settled. As a client of failed insurer AMI, his claim was handled by Government-owned insurance settlement company Southern Response. Ressels, represented by insurance lawyer Grant Shand, sought to have the court accept him as the representative plaintiff in a class action. Shand said they will appeal the ruling. Between 7500 and 9500 AMI policy holders are potentially affected by the issue, which is at the centre of the case. Their repairs may have involved "out of scope" items such as fences, swimming pools and patios, as well as paths and driveways. Ressels claims Southern Response misled him when it implied the $16,875 sum he and his now late wife accepted was a full settlement, and that it was in breach of the Fair Trading Act. He believes the payout did not include added costs such as professional design fees and contingencies. Shand said in his submission to the court that the couple had been unaware they had not been paid their full entitlement, which he calculated at $22,461. "Mr Ressels is elderly. He should not be having to fight Southern Response for what he, and 9500 other home owners were, and are, entitled to be paid." After the Ressels' claim was settled in 2014, Southern Response changed its practice to make express provision for added costs. The company says those costs were included in earlier settlements including the Ressels' but this was not explicitly stated at the time. The court ruling means Russels and other policy holders in the same situation can only sue Southern Response individually, not as part of a class action. The court decision said it was not satisfied there were sufficient common issues of fact among claimants affected to qualify the case as a class action, and that some claimants might have a different outcome by taking an individual case. A previous attempt to launch a class action on the same issue was made in 2021 by John Sneesby, also represented by Shand, but was halted when the claimant settled with Southern Response individually. Shand said he would "certainly" lodge an appeal as he wanted to secure the full payouts, plus interest, for the thousands he said had been short changed. "What Southern Response is trying to do it pick them off by paying them less that they should be getting. "That's why we want to make it a class representative action, so there is some control and supervision over what happens." He said the case was the "twin" of the Ross case, where a class action led by Christchurch couple Brendan and Colleen Ross led to large payouts to Southern Response claimants with damaged homes. That action followed a court finding that Southern Response had kept some repair costs hidden from homeowners and underpaid them. [GN] SPIRIT REALTY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Realty Income Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. (NYSE: SRC), relating to its proposed sale to Realty Income Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, SRC shareholders will receive 0.762 shares of RIC per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/spirit-realty-capital-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. ImmunoGen, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMGN), relating to its proposed sale to AbbVie Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, IMGN shareholders will receive $31.26 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/immunogen-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Patriot Transportation Holding, Inc. (Nasdaq: PATI), relating to its proposed sale to United Petroleum Transports, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, PATI shareholders will receive $16.26 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/patriot-transportation-holding-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Rover Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ROVR), relating to its sale to affiliates of Blackstone Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, ROVR shareholders will receive $11.00 in cash pers share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/rover-group-inc . It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] STEWART TITLE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Biondi Says -------------------------------------------------------------- KIRSTEN BIONDI, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEWART TITLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-021845 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., December 1, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff was employed by Stewart as an escrow employee. In order to complete her duties, the Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant did not record or compensate all hours that escrow employees work each workweek, says the Plaintiff. Stewart Title Company specializes in title insurance and related services required for settlement by the real estate and mortgage industries. It is one of the largest global title insurance companies and underwriters in the industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 T/J INSPECTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Farnes Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY FARNES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T/J INSPECTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01100-PRW (W.D. Okla., December 1, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid compensation at time and a half owed for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a day rate pipeline inspector regularly more than 40 hours a week. However, the Defendant Defendant never paid Plaintiff or the day rate inspectors overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single week. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid him and the day rate inspectors a Day Rate or flat amount for each day worked without overtime compensation, says the Plaintiff. Based in Oklahoma City, T/J Inspections, Inc. provides oil and gas pipeline inspection and special services throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff A. Taylor, Esq. THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK 5613 N. Classen Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286-1600 Facsimile: (405) 842-6132 TARGET CORP: Faces Up & Up Sunscreen False Advertising Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Target Corp. falsely advertises that its Up & Up sunscreen is "reef-conscious" when, in reality, it includes ingredients that are harmful to coral reefs, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Annet Tivin claims Target's "reef-conscious" Up & Up sunscreen contains chemicals that have been linked to causing harm to coral reef ecosystems, and that the company does not label this on the product. "Nowhere on the labeling does the Product tell purchasers that its inactive ingredients are inconsistent with 'protecting and safeguarding' coral reefs, which is what they expect from a 'reef-conscious formula'," the Target class action states. Tivin wants to represent a Florida class of consumers who have purchased Target's Up & Up sunscreen that is marketed as "reef conscious" during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged. Target misleads consumers who are trying to be environmentally conscious, class action says Tivin argues Target is misleading consumers who are trying to be environmentally conscious, while, at the same time, selling the "reef-conscious" Up & Up sunscreen at a premium price that is higher than other similar products represented in a "non-misleading way." "The labeling of the Product as a "reef-conscious formula" even though its active and inactive ingredients do not "protect and safeguard" coral reefs, results in its "misbranding," because it misleads consumers," the Target class action states. Tivin claims Target is guilty of fraud and of violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and a Florida statute involving false and misleading advertising. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory relief along with an award of monetary damages for herself and all class members. A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Target and skincare company Fruit of the Earth in 2021 by a consumer arguing they manufactured and sold Up & Up sunscreens that were falsely advertised as being safe for coral reefs. Have you purchased Target's Up & Up sunscreen? Let us know in the comments The plaintiff is represented by William Wright of The Wright Law Office PA and Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC. The Target sunscreen class action lawsuit is Tivin v. Target Corp., Case No. 0:23-cv-62245, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] VISA INC: Judge Wants Scam Class Suit Settlement Site Be Shut Down ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Christian J. Palacios, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Marutollo's recent report and recommendation -- a novel order in the context of class action settlements -- in the proceeding captioned In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-MD-01720, Doc. No. 9009 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2023), highlights the risks associated with class action claims websites and the potential for bad actors to create fraudulent web pages to mislead claimants. Corporate defendants should take care to monitor online activity following the creation of a court-authorized settlement website in order to protect any class-wide settlement and claimants against potential fraudsters. Indeed, in a world where scammers are becoming increasingly more sophisticated through the use of technology, class action settlement websites may be the next frontier in the battle against cybercrime. Background After 15 years of contentious litigation, Visa and MasterCard settled a putative class action for $5.6 billion to resolve allegations that the credit card companies violated federal and state antitrust laws resulting in over 12 million merchants allegedly paying excessive fees to Visa and MasterCard. As is typical in class actions of this size, a court-authorized settlement website was created to accept claim submissions and provide claimants with details regarding the settlement agreement. On November 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge Marutollo recommended that the Court order the website "settlement2023.org" (and any affiliate website) be taken down, as the operators of the Settlement2023.org entity, who remain unknown, were attempting to deceive putative class members into using the site through various schemes, including using fake voicemails from rap artist Snoop Dogg to convince users of its validity. According to Magistrate Judge Marutollo's report, although the scam website ceased operation on November 21, 2023, it was unclear if other webpages remained open under different domain names that were also operated by the Settlement2023.org entity. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation And Report In addition to recommending the Court issue an order to take down of any and all remaining webpages that attempt to mimic the court-authorized settlement website, Magistrate Judge Marutollo also recommended that the owners and operators of the Settlement2023.org entity be required to identify themselves, and provide a list of all class members that signed up for its services, as well as give notice to would-be customers that any contract they entered into with the entity was now void. Finally, the Magistrate Judge requested that the Court be notified of any newly-detected websites and recommended that the court-authorized website be updated to alert those who may have been deceived by the settlement2023.org website. Implications Cybercriminals continue to capitalize on advances in technology to launch misinformation campaigns, and large class action settlements are in the cross-hairs of this emerging threat. Therefore, it is imperative that plaintiff and defendant-side representatives alike remain vigilant to protect class members from deception and safeguard the integrity of the class action settlement process. [GN] WALT DISNEY: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Katie Arcieri, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walt Disney Co. moved to dismiss a proposed class action brought by TV streamers who allege the entertainment conglomerate violated antitrust laws through agreements that led to subscription price hikes. The plaintiffs, YouTube and DirecTV subscribers, failed to sufficiently allege Disney's agreements unreasonably restrained trade, Disney said in its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Dec. 1 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Disney's control of streaming giant Hulu and ESPN has allowed it to negotiate contracts for the sports network and related channels, resulting in significant power over TV streaming market prices, the plaintiffs allege. [GN] WESCO INTERNATIONAL: Keene Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gerald Keene, an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WESCO INTERNATIONAL INC., a California corporation; ANIXTER INC., a Delaware corporation, ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California limited liability company; EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., a Colorado Corporation; and does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CU23-04283 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00988. The Complaint alleges ten claims for relief, including: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; violations of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel C. Whang, Esq. ASEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com - and - Lilah J. Wylde, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: lwylde@seyfarth.com WEST VIRGINIA: Wants Class Action Over Jail Conditions Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Allen Adams, writing for The Intelligencer, reports that attorneys for Gov. Jim Justice, trying to make the case why he should be dismissed from a federal class action lawsuit over conditions in West Virginia's jails and prisons, argued that inmates are trying to put the federal courts in charge of the state's correctional system. In a reply filed Dec. 1 supporting a motion to dismiss Justice from a class action lawsuit filed in August by attorneys representing inmates across the entire spectrum of the state's correctional system, the governor argues the lawsuit is an attempt to strip oversight by the state of its jails, prisons and juvenile centers. "Plaintiffs are attempting to oversee both the administration and public funding of all state correctional institutions in West Virginia by employing the power of the federal court as the ultimate superintendent," wrote Michael Hissam, an attorney representing Justice. "For many reasons, the claim alleged against the Governor in his official capacity is defective as a matter of law and must be dismissed." The class action lawsuit filed Aug. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against Justice and Department of Homeland Security Cabinet Secretary Mark Sorsaia accuses the state of understaffing, overcrowding and delays of deferred maintenance for facilities. The state is accused of violating the Eighth Amendment constitutional rights of inmates against cruel and unusual punishment. The inmates are seeking a ruling in their favor and an order to require the state to spend no less than $330 million on staffing and maintenance for the state's entire system of 11 prisons, 10 regional jails, 10 juvenile centers and three work-release sites with available funds or by submitting appropriations bills between now and the next legislative session beginning in January. Both Sorsaia, whose department oversees the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and Justice filed motions in November seeking dismissal of the federal lawsuit. In his follow-up reply on behalf of Justice, Hissam said the legal remedy being sought by the inmates violates the state's sovereign immunity and separation of powers between the state and federal government. Hissam argued any federal order either requiring Justice to grant reprieves or paroles to alleviate jail and prison overcrowding would be impossible because federal courts have no authority over what he called "discretionary actions" by state officials. "…The prospect of relying on a state governor's discretionary pardon or commutation power to exercise the federal judicial power over the state to ease overcrowding raises serious federalism and separation of powers concerns, as well as the question of whether the scope of the federal judicial power even includes the authority to order a State's governor to issue mass pardons or commutations," Hissam wrote. Hissam also argued that while the governor has the authority to set revenue estimates upon which state budgets are based, then present a proposed budget to the Legislature, Justice's does not have unilateral power over what that budget looks like once it is passed by the Legislature. While the governor can propose how funds are appropriated, it is the Legislature that has power of the purse. "Plaintiffs do not dispute that the governor cannot appropriate funds. Nor do they appear to defend their request that this court order the governor to appropriate funds himself. Rather, plaintiffs only rely on the governor's power to propose the appropriation of funds," Hissam wrote. "But the act of proposing the spending of funds to the Legislature (all that the governor can do in this regard) does not remedy the wrongs as alleged by Plaintiffs." The case was filed on behalf of Thomas Sheppheard, an inmate at Mt. Olive Correctional Complex in Fayette County; Tyler Randall, an inmate at the Southwestern Regional Jail in Logan County; and an unnamed juvenile at the Donald R. Kuhn Juvenile Center in Boone County. The inmates are presented by several law firms led by New Taylor and Associates. [GN] WESTERN UNION: Court Tosses Radulescu Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IBOLYA RADULESCU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY; and WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03009-DDD-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order denying motion for class certification: The class seeks recompense for those "whose money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days." She moves to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all customers of Defendants "who sent money using Western Union's money transfer services between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days, and who were not members of the Settlement Class in [Tennille v. Western Union Co., No. 1:09-cv-00938-JLK (D. Colo)]." Plaintiff moves to certify a class action challenging this process. The proposed class would be as follows: -- Rule 23 (b)(3) Nationwide Damages Class: "All persons and entities wherever they reside in the United States who sent money using Western Union's money transfer services between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days, and who were not members of the Settlement Class in the Tennille Action;" -- Rule 23 (b)(3) State Sub-Class(es): a. All persons and entities who are residents of Colorado and who sent money using Western Union's money transfer services between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days, and who were not members of the Settlement Class in the Tennille Action. b. All persons and entities who are residents of Washington and who sent money using Western Union's money transfer services between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days, and who were not members of the Settlement Class in the Tennille Action. Western Union is an American multinational financial services corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gu4SIs at no extra charge.[CC] WESTJET AIRLINES: Application to Amend Class Definition Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emond Harnden disclosed that WestJet's application to amend the class definition to have the class period end on July 31, 2018 is dismissed. The class definition is amended to provide that the class period ends on February 28, 2021. The case is Lewis v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2023 BCSC 1921. The class action was brought against WestJet alleging systemic breach of employment contracts with flight attendants. WestJet filed an application under British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act to amend the class definition contained in the Certification Order. WestJet was seeking to have the class period end on July 31, 2018, when CUPE was certified as bargaining agent for the flight attendants. Alternatively, WestJet was seeking to have the class period end upon ratification of the first collective agreement. The court held that it was not plain and obvious that its jurisdiction to determine class members' contractual claims during the period from certification to ratification was ousted by the ratification of the collective agreement. The application was dismissed. [GN] WESTPAC BANKING: Faces Suit Over Flex Commissions ------------------------------------------------- Westpac Banking Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 7, 2023, that a class action commenced against Westpac and St. George Finance Limited (SGF) on 15 July 2020, in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia) in relation to flex commissions paid to auto dealers from 1 March 2013 to 31 October 2018 is currently ongoing. This proceeding is one of three class actions commenced against a number of lenders in the auto finance industry. It is alleged that Westpac and SGF are liable for the unfair conduct of dealers acting as credit representatives and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The damages sought are unspecified. Westpac and SGF are defending the proceedings. Westpac no longer pays flex commissions following an industry wide ban issued by ASIC on 1 November 2018. Westpac Banking Corporation is an Australian multinational banking and financial services company headquartered in Sydney, New South Wales. WHITE WALKER LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Walker, LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. White Walker, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08834 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. White Walker Logistics LLC is a licensed and DOT registred trucking company running freight hauling business from Masontown, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com WHITEFIELD: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Trowell ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMZIDDIN S. TROWELL, v. WHITEFIELD, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09789-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices, letters and lettermotions are limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and lettermotions filed via ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the attachments. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uRKJcP at no extra charge.[CC] [*] Housing Sector Outlook Expected to Improve in 2024 Amid Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Holden Lewis, writing for NerdWallet, reports that attention, home buyers, homeowners and renters: 2024 might treat you more kindly than 2023 did. The housing market was downright hostile in 2023. The 30-year mortgage rate rose from about 6% in February to 8% in October. The median home price peaked above $400,000. Home affordability plunged. 2024 will bring lower mortgage rates, forecasters predict. If they're right, home buyers will gain purchasing power. "It'll be nice to move past the point where we're not setting new records for unaffordability," says Danielle Hale, chief economist for Realtor.com. If optimistic forecasts are accurate, more homeowners might list their homes for sale in 2024, even if it means giving up their low mortgage rates. And renters might get some relief too. Here are mortgage and housing trends to watch for in 2024. Mortgage rates should trend a little lower Fannie Mae, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors all predict that the 30-year mortgage rate will fall to below 7% in the second half of 2024. Daryl Fairweather, chief economist for Redfin, agrees that rates will fall, but she cautions that the decline won't be smooth. "I think there will be swings," she says. "And the swings will be large, both up and down. But the trend will be, on average, down." A couple of things to keep in mind. First, the three organizations failed to forecast the rise in mortgage rates in 2023. Second, even if they're correct about rates falling in 2024, they still predict that the 30-year mortgage will end the year above 6%. They're not saying that rates will fall to the sub-4% levels seen from 2019 and into 2022. "I think the era of very low interest rates was just like a once-in-a-generation thing to happen," says Dave Liniger, who co-founded Re/Max Holdings, a real estate franchiser, two generations ago in 1973. "And I just don't see it going back." But home prices won't fall much, if at all If you hope for plunging prices, you're probably not going to get your wish in 2024. If prices fall — and that's a big "if" — they won't decline much, because the market has reached a persistent equilibrium: Few homes were on the market toward the end of 2023, and buyers were deterred by high interest rates. The standoff is likely to continue. Home prices won't fall until buyers are outnumbered by sellers. "We just have very, very few sellers," said Mike Simonsen, president of real estate analytics firm Altos Research, in a video presentation on Oct. 23. "Declining home prices probably require that supply-and-demand imbalance, and what we have is really a balance. There's a balance between low demand and low supply." If lower rates revive demand, won't that drive prices higher? Economic theory says yes. But human behavior is more complex than economic theory. "In general, you would expect that if mortgage rates fall, it creates more affordability and that should kind of boost housing demand, which might then push prices back up," Hale says. "I don't expect that we're going to see that trend in 2024." Why not? Affordability, Hale says. Buyers' finances are already stretched to the limit, so there won't be much room for home prices to rise, even if mortgage rates fall. More new construction of single-family homes Until more houses hit the market, prices don't have much room to move down. Help is on the way. Builders are applying for more permits to construct single-family houses. They sought 968,000 permits in October at a seasonally adjusted annual rate, the most since May 2022. When those houses are completed, they'll add to the total housing supply. And it's about time for more single-family houses to get built, says Erin Sykes, chief economist for Nest Seekers International, a multinational real estate brokerage. "We've had this ongoing conversation about the shortage of housing, which is true, generally speaking," she says, "but it's actually a shortage with more of an asterisk. We have an oversupply of multifamily and a shortage of single-family." Renters might get a break Rents skyrocketed starting in 2021, prompting developers to build apartments. As those units are completed, rents are going down a tiny bit, according to Realtor.com's monthly rental report. The median asking rent of $1,747 in September was $5 less than in August, and $29 less than the peak in July 2022, according to the report co-written by Jiayi Xu and Hale. Rents are going down because of an apartment construction spree. In the first 10 months of 2023, builders had completed 361,000 multifamily units, a 24% increase over the same period a year earlier. And there's more where that's coming from: More than 980,000 multifamily units were under construction in October. The vast majority are apartments, and many of them will be ready for occupancy by the end of 2024. "That is going to help bring rents to a slightly more affordable place," Hale says. Rate lock-in may begin to ease For every 20 homes that were for sale at the end of October 2019, just 13 were for sale in October 2023. This decline is blamed on a phenomenon called rate lock-in. Rate lock-in occurred as people bought homes, or refinanced their mortgages, when mortgage rates were low — often below 4% — in 2020 and 2021. Those homeowners are reluctant to sell their homes and give up those low rates. They are locked in. Economists believe two factors — time and falling rates — are the keys. "As mortgage rates come down, as homeowners build equity, I think we'll start to see the lock-in effect abate," Hale says. More people will list their homes for sale, giving buyers more houses to choose from and relieving some of the upward pressure on prices. This will be a multi-year process. Lawsuits could change how agents are paid Class-action lawsuits against the National Association of Realtors and some real estate brokerages could shake up the way real estate agents are paid, potentially leading to significant changes in the way homes are bought and sold. On Oct. 31, a federal jury in Kansas City, Missouri, decided that the NAR had imposed anticompetitive rules that required home sellers to pay nonnegotiable, excessive commissions to buyer's agents. The jury assessed damages of close to $1.8 billion against NAR and two co-defendant brokerages; the NAR has said it will appeal. (Two brokerages settled before trial for a combined total of $138.5 million in damages.) Meanwhile, a similar antitrust case is expected to begin in a federal court in Illinois in 2024, and other class-action suits have been filed in other states. Home sellers, buyers and real estate agents might end up conducting transactions differently, depending on how these cases are decided in 2024 and beyond. There's much uncertainty about 2024, including the outcomes of those lawsuits. But all in all, the outlook is for an improvement over 2023. [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 ***