/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 22, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 256 Headlines AKUMIN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ontario AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by April 1, 2024 ASHFORD INC: Faces Labor Suit Over Rest Period BROOKLYN PREMIER: Kornmann Sues Over Unprotected Medical Info CANADA: Justice for Migrant Workers Sue Over Employment Insurance CANADA: RCMP Loses Bid to Appeal Class Action Certification CENTERPLATE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Without Prejudice CONIFER VALUE-BASED: Kolb and Tang Suits Moved to C.D. California DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Bonus Bet Ad EARGO INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Patient Square Sale EAST RIVER: Patients File Class Action Following Cyberattack ESTEE LAUDER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 5 FRED HUTCHINSON: Faces Class Action Following Data Breach GLENCORE PLC: Faces Class Action Over Negligence in Safety GOOGLE LLC: Moves to Compel Arbitration of Users' Claims HUMANA INC: Faces Class Action Over Use of AI to End Rehab Stays JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Wins Property Tax Assessment Class Action JOHN DEERE: Must Face Antitrust Class Action, Court Rules KNIX WEAR: Settles PFAS Class Action for $1.4 Million KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Judge Asked to Publish Info in CPAP Suit Deal KROGER CO: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Mislabeled Smoked Gouda LA FONDA DELI: Faces Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. LENSCRAFTERS INC: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 26 LIFELABS: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on April 6 LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Morris Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty LINKEDIN CORP: Agrees to Settle ERISA Class Action for $6.75MM LIVE NATION: Taylor Swift Fan Drops Antitrust Class Action LOAN DEPOT: Faces Class Actions Over Deceptive Business Practices MAT ASPHALT: Judge Approves $1.2MM Deal in Noxious Odor Class Suit MERCURY SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 12 MERCURY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Edge Retirement Accounts META PLATFORMS: RCSD Joins Class Suit Over Social Media Addiction MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for February 5 MINOL INC: Dematties Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices MOBILE PHLEBOTOMY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Rayford Claims MONSANTO CO: Ontario Court Certifies Roundup Class Action NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Challenges Subscription List Class Action NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: Faces Labor Class Action in California NESTLE HEALTHCARE: 9th Circuit Panel Revives False Ad Class Action NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class of CFI Waiver Members Certified in Fitzmorris NEW ZEALAND: Christchurch High Court OKs Suit Over Land Damage ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 12 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Metamucil False Advertising Class Action R.H. PETERSON: Faces Mancia Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices SAKS FIFTH: Faces Class Action Over Use of Email Tracking Tools SELFDISRUPT LLC: Harris Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices SIKA AG: M&D Peterson Alleges Supra-Competitive Prices, Conspiracy SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 2 TENDER & TRUE PET: Kouyoumdjian Suit Removed to C.D. California TENET HEALTHCARE: Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts TOMOCREDIT INC: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Gera Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. UNION BANK AND TRUST: Bender Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts UNION INSTITUTE: Richard-Allerdyce Sues Over Unpaid Wages UNION PACIFIC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Contamination UNITED STATES: Parks Sues Over Air Marshals' Race Discrimination UNITED STATES: VA Must Face Homeless Disabled Veterans' Suit USAA CASUALTY: MSP Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade County State Court WAITR HOLDINGS: Breach of Contract Suit Remanded to W.D. La. WAITR HOLDINGS: Faces False Advertising Suit in Minnesota Court WALMART INC: Defends Class Suit Over Mislabeled Organic Raw Honey WASHINGTON, DC: Court Stays M.J. Class Suit in Interim WELLTOK INC: Meyer Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info WEST VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Hear Report on Correctional System WOODSIDE ENERGY: Greenpeace Files Emissions Class Action Suit [*] Class Suit Filed in Quebec Over Salmonella in Cantaloupes [*] Data Breach Class Actions Up in 2023, Study Shows [*] Firefighter Seeks Review of Ohio Class Vacatur in PFAS Action [*] Village of Belgium Opts Out of PFAs Class Action Settlement Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 1,060 PI Lawsuits as of Oct. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Pushing to Settle Asbestos Related Talc Cases ********* AKUMIN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ontario ---------------------------------------------------------------- Akumin Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities the class suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On December 20, 2021, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of Securities Act (Ontario), negligent misrepresentation and other related claims relating to the restatement of the Company's financial statements that were filed in 2021. On February 17, 2023, the plaintiff delivered a motion record for certification and for leave to commence action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act (Ontario). The Company plans to defend the claim and the motion. Akumin Inc. provides outpatient radiology and oncology services to health systems, hospitals, physician groups, and patients all across the country. AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA CARLISLE, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation; AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-06856-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file stipulation to continue class certification motion deadlines: 1. The last day to file Plaintiff's motion April 29, 2024 for class certification shall be continued from February 27, 2024 to: 2. The last day to file the Defendants' May 27, 2024 opposition to motion for class certification shall be continued from March 12, 2024 to: 3. The last day to file Plaintiff's reply June 10, 2024 brief in support of motion for class certification shall be continued from March 19, 2024 to: 4. The class certification hearing shall June 25, 2024 be continued from April 9, 2024 to: Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48fDXvT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com kagnew@diversitylaw.com nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - and - Cody R. Kennedy, Esq. Tatiana Avakian, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Peter M. Hart, Esq. Ashlie E. Fox, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 525 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 478-5789 Facsimile: (509) 561-6441 E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com ashlie.fox.loph@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Berry, Esq. Katya N. Abelsky, Esq. Max Fischer, Esq. Tuyet T. Nguyen Lu, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com katya.abelsky@morganlewis.com max.fischer@morganlewis.com tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert by April 1, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alec Plotts, Marc Caine, and Leticia Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04529-CJC-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order that Plaintiffs shall have until April 1, 2024, to file their motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48uxi15 at no extra charge.[CC] ASHFORD INC: Faces Labor Suit Over Rest Period ----------------------------------------------- Ashford Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2023, that a December 20, 2016 class action lawsuit filed against one of the company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain California employment laws is currently ongoing. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of a previous written policy requiring employees to stay on premises during rest breaks and a derivative class of non-exempt former employees who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the class, however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. The opt out period has been extended until such time that discovery has concluded. In May of 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the class decertified. The trial court set a due date of August 7, 2023 for the briefs. After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon. Ashford Inc., a Nevada corporation, is an alternative asset management company with a portfolio of strategic operating businesses that provides products and services primarily to clients in the real estate and hospitality industries, including Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. and Braemar Hotels and Resorts, Inc. BROOKLYN PREMIER: Kornmann Sues Over Unprotected Medical Info ------------------------------------------------------------- RUDOLPH KORNMANN and DAVID ASEKOFF, on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROOKLYN PREMIER ORTHOPEDICS AND PAIN MANAGEMENT PLLC d/b/a BROOKLYN PREMIER ORTHOPEDICS, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08761 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2023) is a class action arising out of the recent, targeted cyberattack and data breach where third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated personal data from Defendant's network resulting in unauthorized access to highly sensitive medical data of Plaintiffs, and, according to BPO, at least 48,000 Class Members. According to the data breach notice sent to Plaintiffs, on or about October 5, 2023, BPO learned that an unauthorized entity had gained access to patient information on one of its computer servers. In response, Defendant launched an investigation and notified law enforcement. BPO's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain patient files on the server on an undisclosed date. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and Class Members are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cybersecurity measures. Specifically, Plaintiffs and Class Members trusted Defendant with their private information but Defendant betrayed that trust, including by failing to properly use up-to-date security practices and measures to prevent the data breach, and the exfiltration and theft of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive private information. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have and will continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses and anxiety over the misuse of their private information, says the suit. Brooklyn Premier Orthopedics and Pain Management PLLC is an orthopedic and pain management center with its headquarters in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Matthew J. Langley, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com CANADA: Justice for Migrant Workers Sue Over Employment Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joanne Clark, writing for Caribbean National Weekly, reports that Justice for Migrant Workers Canada has initiated a groundbreaking class action lawsuit, targeting a multimillion-dollar settlement to secure the rights of thousands of migrant farm workers, including Jamaicans. The lawsuit aims to break barriers hindering these laborers from their rightful access to the Canadian employment insurance system, despite their regular benefits. Legal pursuit for damages and declaration of rights Leading the legal battle, Attorney-at-law Shane Martinez asserts that the core objective of this legal action is to restore justice to the farm workers. According to Martinez, seeking both damages and a declaration, the lawsuit calls for substantial general damages amounting to $500 million Canadian. These damages are pursued for the restitution and discouragement caused by violations of Section 7 and Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 pertains to the security of individuals, while Section 15 safeguards people against discrimination on specific grounds. Challenging an "unjustly enriched" system In addition to monetary claims, the migrant workers are also seeking a declaration from the court. They aim to challenge the existing system, created and maintained by the government, which has allegedly led to unjust enrichment. Their argument is rooted in the belief that this system goes against the principles enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Implications beyond borders Emphasizing the significance of the lawsuit, Martinez highlights its implications on a broader scale. He notes that this legal claim not only delves into Canadian law but also extends its reach to international law, encompassing conventions related to the rights of migrant farm workers and laborers worldwide. He added that this case merits close attention from the Jamaican government, as it holds the potential to impact countless Jamaican citizens if approved as a class action by the Canadian courts. Bridging the benefits gap Chris Ramsaroop, the organizer behind Justice for Migrant Workers Canada, underscores the disparities between Canadian farm workers and their migrant counterparts. While Canadian farm workers have access to benefits denied to migrants, Ramsaroop argues that it is only equitable for returning Jamaican and Caribbean migrant workers, comprising roughly 80 per cent of the workforce, to access these benefits upon their return to their home countries. [GN] CANADA: RCMP Loses Bid to Appeal Class Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Morritt-Jacobs, writing for APTN, reports that the Supreme Court of Canada turned down a request from the federal government to appeal the certification of a class action lawsuit against members of the RCMP. The class action was launched in 2018 and involves plaintiffs in three territories who say they were victims of excessive force by members of the Mounties. The claims alleges "systemic racism and racist treatment of the Indigenous population, who were arrested, detained or held in custody," according to a statement from Steven Cooper, one of the lawyers involved. Canada appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the certification of the class action filed in federal court. The high court doesn't explain why it won't hear a case. "This is a victory in the pursuit of justice, but it is merely the end of the beginning," said Cooper. "The RCMP, while admitting their own malfeasance, have shown a singular inability to alter their own bad behavior. "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has echoed the concerns of multiple senior representatives of the RCMP and yet, to date, has been unable to effect change. Society demands reconciliation and reconciliation requires acknowledgment and validation of the complaints made." Two cases have been filed by Cooper and his partners and certified to proceed as class actions against the RCMP. There is also a similar case filed in Vancouver in 2020 "covering many of the same issues," and the rest of the country. According to Cooper, the dismissal by the court on Dec. 14 paves the way for all the lawsuits to proceed. "There isn't going to be an overhaul of the system, the thing to be is the spark," Cooper said. "The other foundational principles behind class action is behavior modification, and so it's rare to have such consistent acknowledgment of liability on the part of a national institution like we have here." It's welcome news for the Nasogaluak family -- the main plaintiffs in the case. "They did do an investigation but it was the cops investigating cops," said Diane Nasogaluak, mother of the lead plaintiff, Joe David Nasogaluiak. "I was glad my husband knew a lawyer and so we called him Alan Regal who said after the investigation is done he said if you are not pleased with it then to give him a call. "I told them all I want is justice for my son and they said you should be happy we dropped those charges, they laid a bunch of charges on him and he was only 15 he didn't do anything, all he did was sitting there driving around with his friends." Joe David was arrested in 2017. He was 15 at the time. He alleges that two officers in Tuktoyaktuk assaulted, tasered, choked and hurled racial slurs at him. "After all this happened he tried to go back to school, but one day they were having RCMP talk there and JD just walked out of school, he didn't feel safe or comfortable with them there going into his classroom talking about their job," Diane Nasogaluak said. Joe David Nasogaluak who is now 21, has been on a healing journey, connecting with his culture, singing, drumming and dog mushing. The class action was launched on behalf of all First Nations, Inuit and Metis people in Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon who allege they were harmed by unnecessary force by the RCMP. "If any message were to be derived by the dismissal of the leave application, it's that these types of claims will be allowed to proceed collectively because they are the most productive use of judicial resources and they allow far greater access to justice, which are two of the founding principles of class action proceedings," said Cooper. The Nasogaluak family wants systemic institutional and cultural change for policing in Canada. "Since I was young I was always scared of cops," Diane said. "I feared for my family. Maybe it was good for our family to change the law to change the future for my grandkids and everyone else in the north and wherever else because it has been going on for generations and generations." According to Cooper, there are roughly 1,000 names on the class action across the three territories. [GN] CENTERPLATE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class action against Centerplate Inc. and Sodexo Inc. was dismissed without prejudice by a federal court at the request of the parties so the claims can be settled in a companion case in California state court. Looking at the interaction between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), which deals with dismissals, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), which deals with a court's pre-certification review of voluntary dismissals of class actions, the opinion by Judge Janis L. Sammartino, of the US District Court for the Southern District of California, said the courts have no role in voluntary dismissals. [GN] CONIFER VALUE-BASED: Kolb and Tang Suits Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge David L. Horan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants the Defendants' motion to transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California the lawsuits titled NICOLE KOLB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONIFER VALUE-BASED CARE, LLC, CONIFER HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, CONIFER REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Lead Case No. 3:23-cv-744-E-BN (N.D. Tex.). WILLIAM TANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONIFER VALUE-BASED CARE, LLC, CONIFER HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, CONIFER REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Consolidated Case No. 3:23-cv-870-E-BN (N.D. Tex.). The case has been referred to Judge Horan for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) and a standing order of reference from United States District Judge Ada Brown. Defendants Conifer Health Solutions LLC, Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions LLC, Conifer Value-Based Care LLC, and Tenet Healthcare Corporation filed a motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to the first-to-file doctrine and a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Nicole Kolb and William Tang filed responses to both motions, and the Defendants filed replies to both responses. For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants Tenet Health's motion to transfer under the first-to-file doctrine and transfers the consolidated case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The motion to dismiss will remain pending for consideration in the Central District of California. The case concerns the Defendants' alleged data breach. Defendant Tenet Healthcare ("Tenet") is the "parent company" of Defendants Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions LLC ("Conifer Revenue"), Conifer Health Solutions LLC ("Conifer Health"), and Conifer Value-Based Care LLC ("Conifer Value"), together ("Tenet Health"). The Defendants provide revenue support and care solutions to hospitals and healthcare systems. Because of their work, the Defendants store sensitive information about their clients' patients. Plaintiffs Nicole Kolb and William Tang allege that a data breach occurred on Jan. 20, 2022, exposing their sensitive information. The Defendants did not discover the breach until April 14, 2022, and notified their client healthcare providers on Aug. 12, 2022. The Plaintiffs received notice on or about Sept. 30, 2023. In addition to this case, Tenet Health's motion concerns another class action lawsuit filed against Conifer Revenue Cycle LLC in California Superior Court and removed to Central District of California. That case, Morales v. Conifer Revenue Cycle Sols., LLC, No. 2:23-cv-1987 (C.D. Cal.), is ongoing. The Morales case, filed Oct. 6, 2022, also concerns the January 2022 data breach. The Morales case alleges negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, violation of California security notification laws ("CRA"), violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. Morales defines the putative class as: "All person to whom Conifer sent a letter, dated September 30, 2022, entitled 'Notice of Data Breach,' signed "Dustin Kellner[,] Conifer Privacy Officer[.]" Plaintiff Nicole Kolb filed the present case against the Defendants on April 7, 2023. William Tang (in Case No. 3:23-cv-870-E-BN) and Nicole Kolb consolidated their cases through Kolb's unopposed motion on May 12, 2023. They allege negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, violation of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, violation of California's Consumer Records Act, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The Kolb class is defined as: "All individuals residing in the United States whose Personally Identifiable Information/Personal Health Information (PII/PHI) was compromised in the Data Breach discovered by Defendants in January 2022." On Oct. 12, 2023, Tenet Health filed this Motion to Transfer the Kolb case to the Central District of California. The Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Defendants also filed a motion to stay pending resolution of the above-mentioned motions, which the Court granted. After reviewing the Kolb and Morales complaints, the parties' arguments, and the law, the Court finds that there is substantive overlap between the two lawsuits. Because Morales was filed first, the Court will transfer the action to the Central District of California. Judge Horan explains that there is substantial overlap in the parties and substantive issues in Kolb and Morales. Tenet Health asserts that there is substantial overlap because the Plaintiffs are putative members of the Morales class, the Defendants in both lawsuits are related, and the critical issues are "virtually identical" between the cases. The Plaintiffs contend that the lawsuits do not substantially overlap because the first-to-file rule is inappropriate for certain class actions, the class sizes are different, the Defendants are different, and the causes of action are different. But the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to persuade the Court that the motion to transfer should be denied. As Tenet Health persuasively argues, Judge Horan opines that the Named Plaintiffs (Kolb and Tang) appear to themselves fit in the Morales class definition. While the amended complaint does not attach the letter that the Named Plaintiffs received, Tang and Kolb are both California residents, who were notified on or about Sept. 30, 2022, of the data breach. The Plaintiffs' being members of the Morales case -- as they appear likely to be -- would also weigh in favor of transferring the case. The Court also agrees with Tenet Healthcare that the causes of action in the cases substantially overlap. Both complaints allege violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, violations of the California Business Code, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and allege negligence and negligence per se. Consistent with the first-to-file doctrine, Judge Horan holds that the motion to dismiss should remain pending in the first-filed court. Because there is a related suit pending in the first-filed court, and the Court had determined the case should be transferred to the Central District of California, Judge Horan will uphold the principle of comity by deferring ruling on the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Transfer Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule and orders that these consolidated cases be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 13. 2023, to allow any party to file an objection to Judge Brown within 14 days after being served with a copy of this order. If an objection is filed, this order of transfer is stayed pending further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4zj8tye9from PacerMonitor.com. DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Bonus Bet Ad -------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Evans, writing for Legal Sport Report, reports that DraftKings is under fire because of allegedly "unfair and deceptive" bonus bet advertising. The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) announced a class-action lawsuit against DraftKings and its promotional strategy. The organization filed the suit in Massachusetts's Middlesex Superior Court on behalf of two Massachusetts bettors, Shane Harris and Melissa Scanlon. The complaint claims the operator misleads customers into believing they receive a $1,000 bonus after depositing money into an account. "Shane and Melissa are typical of many thousands of people in Massachusetts who were misled by the bonus offer and would not have signed up had they understood DraftKings' unfair and deceptive requirements," PHAI Executive Director Mark Gottlieb said in a release. Basis of DraftKings lawsuit The DraftKings $1,000 bonus bet offer requires customers to deposit $5,000 into an account and wager $25,000 within 90 days. The complaint outlines a bettor would have to wager more than $276 per day for three months to qualify for the full bonus. Customers also must use the bonus as wagers and cannot withdraw them as cash. The complaint alleges, "DraftKings knew, or should have known, that its advertisement and promotion was deceptive to their target customers, who were new to sports betting and were extremely unlikely to understand the gambling lingo in the fine print." Plantiff famous for tobacco lawsuits The PHAI is based at the Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. One of the organization's leaders, Northeastern University Distinguished Professor of Law Richard Daynard, was part of a lawsuit against big tobacco for its health risks in the 1980s. Now, Daynard claims DraftKings is aware its product is prone to addiction. "Online gambling is creating a public health disaster with increasingly addictive products right before our eyes," Daynard said in a release. "In fact, massive advertising using unfair and deceptive promotions to hook customers on an addictive product bears an uncanny similarity to what the cigarette companies used to get away with." DraftKings plans to fight lawsuit DraftKings plans to "vigorously defend" itself against the allegations, according to a spokesperson. "As a customer-first organization, DraftKings takes consumer protection and responsible gaming seriously," DraftKings said in a statement to LSR. "Regrettably, the institute ignored our multiple attempts to engage in an in-person dialogue to carefully examine their concerns and, instead, filed suit." The offers were advertised through social media, TV and radio, and third-party platforms, according to PHAI. Bonus bets not new DraftKings has run the $1,000 bonus bet offer across its US sports betting footprint this year. Sportsbooks use promotional offers to acquire new customers, particularly in new markets. Online Massachusetts sportsbooks launched in March. Sportsbook advertising has increasingly been in the spotlight with legislators and regulators, including in Massachusetts. As multiple jurisdictions banned using the term "risk-free" with sportsbook offers, the American Gaming Association updated its Responsible Marketing Code to prohibit its use. [GN] EARGO INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Patient Square 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: Eargo, Inc. (Nasdaq: EAR ), relating to its proposed sale to an affiliate of Patient Square Capital. Under the terms of the agreement, EAR shareholders will receive $2.55 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/eargo-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. Codorus Valley Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: CVLY ), relating to its proposed sale to Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, CVLY shareholders are expected to own approximately 44% of the outstanding shares of the combined company. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/codorus-valley-bancorp-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Evofem Biosciences, Inc. (OTC: EVFM), relating to its proposed sale to Aditxt, Inc. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/evofem-biosciences-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 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] EAST RIVER: Patients File Class Action Following Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------------ Marty Stempniak, writing for Radiology Business, reports that patients have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against a New York radiology group following a September cyberattack that impacted the information of nearly 606,000 individuals. Rachael Kuecher alleges that East River Medical Imaging PC failed to encrypt sensitive data and implement standard security practices, Bloomberg Law reported on Dec. 12. The HIPAA Journal previously reported on the incident earlier this month, noting that the compromised information varied from person to person. Leaked data reportedly included names, insurance info, exam types, referring physicians, imaging results, or Social Security numbers. The leak also involved employee data, the report noted. ERMI responded by enhancing its network monitoring capabilities and continues to assess security controls, according to the report. It sent notifications to impacted parties in late November and is offering credit monitoring to those whose SSNs and driver's license details were leaked. The private practice, which was founded in 1970 and has four locations on the Upper East Side, Lenox Hill and Sutton Place areas of Manhattan, along with Westchester County, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Dec. 14. [GN] ESTEE LAUDER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Dec. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. ("Estee Lauder" or the "Company") (NYSE: EL) securities during the period from August 18, 2022 through May 2, 2023, inclusive. Investors have until February 5, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On November 2, 2022, Estee Lauder announced it was lowering its full year outlook for fiscal 2023. In pertinent part, the Company disclosed net sales of $3.93 billion for its first quarter, a decline of 11% from $4.39 billion in the prior-year period, including negative impacts from foreign currency. Additionally, organic net sales fell five percent. Estee Lauder attributed it to headwinds from the COVID-19 restrictions in China, supply chain disruptions, and record-high inflation. On this news, the price of Estee Lauder shares declined by $16.80 per share, or approximately 8.13%, from $206.76 per share to close at $189.96 on November 2, 2022. On February 2, 2023, Estee Lauder reported its financial results for its second quarter of fiscal 2023. On the same day, the Company announced that it was lowering its outlook for fiscal year 2023. Despite the fact that emerging markets in other parts of Asia and the West delivered strong organic net sales growth, the Company blamed its lowered guidance on greater than anticipated challenges of COVID-19 restrictions in China. On this news, the price of Estee Lauder shares declined by $12.39 per share, or approximately 4.41%, from $280.80 per share to close at $268.41 on February 2, 2023. Finally, on May 3, 2023, Estee Lauder announced weaker sales and profit for the year than estimated and accordingly cut its fiscal year outlook for a third consecutive time. On this news, the price of Estee Lauder shares declined by $42.52 per share, or approximately 17.34%, from $245.22 per share to close at $202.70 on May 3, 2023 The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was unable to effectively manage its supply chain and product manufacturing, resulting in reduced revenues and margins, and increased inventory levels; and (ii) Estee Lauder's supply chain management issues continued to exist, in addition to elevated inventory levels at retail partners. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Estee Lauder securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this lawsuit and how it might affect your rights, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: https://www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. 212-699-1180 https://www.kmllp.com investigations@kmllp.com [GN] FRED HUTCHINSON: Faces Class Action Following Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Denise Whitaker, writing for KOMO News, reports that there's great danger any time a cybercriminal gets a hold of personal information. This time, a data breach at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center was followed by ransom notes to Hutch patients and even those who have never been a patient there. For example, Jack Doe, the Bainbridge Island child at the center of a new class action lawsuit. That class action lawsuit accuses the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, UW Medical Center, and others of failing to protect sensitive data of its patients. The suit stems from more than just a data breach of personal data and private medical records. The suit -- filed by Turke & Strauss LLP, based in Madison, Wis. -- accused the defendants of failing to provide security to stop "a flood of extortionary threats by cybercriminals to defendants' current and former patients." At 2 weeks of age, the suit says Jack had a follow up appointment at the UW Medicine Northgate Clinic. Jack was never a patient at Fred Hutch, but Susan Gregg with UW Medicine said me the two health systems work together advancing cancer research and the data breach at the Hutch impacted data for some UW patients who have not been seen at Fred Hutch. "I think a lot of critical infrastructure in organizations, such as hospitals are no exception and are going to be very prime targets for this kind of behavior," said FBI spokesperson Steve Bernd. Right now, the Washington Attorney General's website lists 10 other data breaches involving medical information reported during just the months of October and November. That list does not include the new breach at the Fred Hutch. The FBI calls these types of cyber security threats a one stop shop for criminals. Their advice is to -- check accounts for suspicious activity -- install security patches as soon as available -- use strong passwords and multi-factor authentication and use an off-line storage back-up system for your sensitive information. The FBI also asks that anyone who received a ransom note, report it. And what is the Hutch doing? They said they quarantined computer servers, alerted the federal investigators and hired a forensic security firm. Hutch also received two ransom demands, according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle. The lawsuit states that his father, John Doe, is taking this action on behalf of himself, his son, and all others harmed. Before the data breach, the lawsuit states that private information was private, but not anymore. "Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure," the lawsuit says, adding that the exposure of personal health information "to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung." The lawsuit is demanding a jury trial and seeking class-action status. The full list of defendants in the suit are: -- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center -- UW School of Medicine -- UW Medical Center -- Harborview Medical Center -- Valley Medical Center -- UW Physicians -- UW Neighborhood Clinics (d/b/a UW Medicine Primary Care) -- Airlift Northwest -- Children's University Medical Group The suit accuses the defendants of failing to protect private information after a data breach on March 25, 2022, in which the defendants "discovered suspicious activity associated with a single employee's business email account." With this new breach, the lawsuit claims the current action "is simply part and parcel of defendants' pattern of negligently inadequate data security." The lawsuit seeks class-action status and asks the court to award damages, relief, restitution, and more to the plaintiff and class members. [GN] GLENCORE PLC: Faces Class Action Over Negligence in Safety ---------------------------------------------------------- Denene Erasmus, writing for BusinessDay, reports that in a fourth and final filing, human rights law firm Richard Spoor Inc (RSI) filed a class-action suit against global mining company Glencore. Over the last five months, Spoor has filed applications for certification of a class against several former and current coal mining companies in SA . . . The claim against Glencore, filed in the Gauteng division of the High Court on Dec. 12, focuses on negligence in training and safety. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Moves to Compel Arbitration of Users' Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Joyce E. Cutler, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Google LLC and parent Alphabet Inc. asked a federal judge on Dec. 14 to compel arbitration of users' claims its Google Home feature intercepts users' private communications without permission. Those suing counter that the technology company simply waited too long to assert its arbitration claim, and waived it. Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, who's handing the case, on Dec. 11 certified a nationwide class of purchasers of a Google-made device. The Dec. 14 hearing involved Google's bid to exclude purchasers who agreed to a class-action waiver and to have their claims arbitrated under agreements. [GN] HUMANA INC: Faces Class Action Over Use of AI to End Rehab Stays ---------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Henreckson, writing for McKnights, reports that two skilled nursing patients filed a class action suit against Humana on Dec. 12 alleging their Medicare Advantage benefits were cut prematurely short because of Humana's wrongful reliance on artificial intelligence. The lawsuit alleges that Humana regularly overrides clear post-acute care needs and the recommendations of doctors in order to cut costs. "This putative class action arises from Humana's illegal deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in place of real doctors to wrongfully deny elderly patients care owed to them under Medicare Advantage Plans," the suit states. "Humana knows that the nH Predict AI Model predictions are highly inaccurate and are not based on patients' medical needs but continues to use this system to deny patients' coverage." The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 12 in the US District Court in Western Kentucky. It is the newest front in a war over the future of AI in healthcare. The courts' decision could help clear the way for AI to remain on its current trajectory in the sector or force insurers and providers to take a hard look at how this emerging technology impacts patients. AI is increasingly utilized to streamline time-consuming processes in the healthcare sector, but the technology has drawn scrutiny from policymakers and the public -- especially when it is used to make healthcare decisions that would typically be made by humans. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs sent a letter in May to demand that the nation's largest Medicare Advantage insurers -- including Humana -- provide more transparency about how they use AI in such care decisions. Demands for transparency and accountability continued to build through November, when 30 House Democrats urged the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to investigate the ways algorithms are being deployed in the healthcare sector. The same month, UnitedHealth Group was handed a similar class action lawsuit for using the same nH Predict AI algorithm as used by Humana. Denial of post-acute coverage JoAnne Barrows and Susan Hagood, the plaintiffs, were admitted to skilled nursing facilities for post-acute care and rehab after injuries they sustained in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Both were receiving ongoing care following a hospital stay, which should have been covered under their plans, according to the lawsuit. "Under Medicare Advantage Plans, patients who have a three-day hospital stay are typically entitled to up to 100 days in a nursing home. With the use of the nH Predict AI Model, Humana cuts off payment in a fraction of that time. Patients rarely stay in a nursing home more than 14 days before they start receiving payment denials," the suit asserts. Barrows' doctor was allegedly still recommending further rehabilitation treatment and for Barrows to keep off her feet for another month at the time her coverage was cut. "Ms. Barrows and her doctor were bewildered by Humana's premature termination of coverage," the lawsuit said. Claims of wrongdoing The class action suit lays blame for the plaintiffs' coverage denial squarely on Humana for the way it utilizes AI algorithms and for undermining doctors' and employees' ability to consider the nuances of a patient's case. "Humana wrongfully delegates its obligation to evaluate and investigate claims to the nH Predict AI Model. The nH Predict AI Model spits out generic recommendations based on incomplete and inadequate medical records and fails to adjust for a patient's individual circumstances," the lawsuit alleges. It also asserts that Humana employees are reprimanded or fired for going against the AI's recommendations and that this constitutes purposeful misconduct by the insurer. Mark Taylor, director of corporate communications at Humana, said that Humana does not comment on pending litigation but did provide a statement on the company's use of AI to McKnight's Long-Term Care News. "At Humana, we use various tools, including augmented intelligence, to expedite and approve utilization management requests and ensure that patients receive high-quality, safe and efficient care," the comment said. "By definition, augmented intelligence maintains a ‘human in the loop' decision-making whenever AI is utilized. Coverage decisions are made based on the health care needs of patients, medical judgment from doctors and clinicians, and guidelines put in place by CMS. It's important to note that adverse coverage decisions are only made by physician medical directors." It's unclear how many people have been impacted by alleged misuse of AI, but the lawsuit claims that thousands or possibly millions of people might be eligible for payment if the case goes the plaintiffs' way, due to how widespread the use of AI already is. [GN] JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Wins Property Tax Assessment Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- JoBeth Davis, writing for KMBC News, reports that Jackson County, Missouri, taxpayers fighting against the 2023 property tax assessment process won one battle and lost another in Missouri's courts on Dec. 12. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey first announced his office has filed a lawsuit against the county over the debacle. A short time later, two Missouri Supreme Court opinions were handed down, dismissing the class action lawsuit against the county, and dismissing counts of the suit against Tyler Technologies entirely. The class action suit, filed by Jackson County property owners (referred to as Taxpayers in the petition), filed suit against the county saying its actions resulted in "unlawful increases to assessed property values." Specifically, Taxpayers claimed the county failed to provide notice of increases by June 15, and failed to conduct physical inspections of properties that increased by more than 15 percent. The county filed a motion to dismiss that lawsuit saying Taxpayers "failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit" in Jackson County Circuit Court. The circuit court overruled the County's motion to dismiss, ultimately pushing the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. In the opinion issued on Dec. 12, the county and supreme court stated complaints about property assessments must first be brought before a county board of equalization. If no agreement is reached, the matter can be brought before the state tax commission. If, after that, no agreement is reached, the property owner may seek judicial review in the circuit court. Taxpayers claimed because the county failed to notify them of increases promptly, they didn't need to exhaust all available administrative remedies. The opinion notes, "Taxpayers assert they did not receive notice of increased assessments by June 15, and they filed suit challenging the increased assessments on June 20. The time to appeal to the Board did not expire until the second Monday in July-July 10, 2023 . . . when Taxpayers filed suit, they had 20 days to appeal to the Board." " Alternatively, Taxpayers could have appealed the increased assessments directly to the Commission, as they did not receive notice prior to 30 days before the deadline to appeal to the Board . . . In fact, Taxpayers have until December 31, 2023, to file an appeal with the Commission." To sum the decision up, the court wrote, "County's failure to provide timely notice did not prevent Taxpayers from pursuing administrative remedies as in John Calvin. Rather, at the time Taxpayers filed suit, they could have exercised their appellate rights to the Board or Commission, but they chose not to and, instead, filed suit. Because Taxpayers failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit, the action must be dismissed." In a second opinion issued on Dec. 12, the court ruled Tyler Technologies' request to be dismissed from the lawsuit was granted "because Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing Tyler owed them a duty of care." [GN] JOHN DEERE: Must Face Antitrust Class Action, Court Rules --------------------------------------------------------- Sean P. McConnell, Esq., Christopher H. Casey, Esq., Brian H. Pandya, Esq., and Joseph R. Welsh, Esq., of Duane Morris LLP, disclosed that on November 27, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied agricultural giant John Deere's request to dismiss a proposed class action alleging the company has violated antitrust laws. Specifically, the purported class alleges that John Deere unfairly limits competition for farming equipment by restricting access to software and tools needed to repair electronic control units on tractors. In re: Deere & Company Repair Service Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-50188, MDL No. 3030 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2023). In denying Deere's motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court found that the proposed class sufficiently pled its "harmful allegations" that the company exercises monopoly power in the aftermarket, thereby rejecting Deere's proffered theory that "everybody knew" options for consumers were limited. Takeaways The Deere case is an important development in the right-to-repair movement that accelerated in the wake of a presidential executive order and a promise by the Federal Trade Commission to ramp up enforcement against illegal repair restrictions. Original equipment manufacturers traditionally sought control in so-called repair markets; however, that may be changing. While just at the pleading stage, the Deere decision is notable in that the court recognized that the plaintiffs alleged a single-brand repair aftermarket and that Deere failed to provide sufficient information regarding product lifecycle costs and repair options. The case also tackles the Illinois Brick doctrine head-on and could be an important decision for downstream customers in future right-to-repair cases. A Brief History of the Right to Repair The debate over the consumer right to a competitive aftermarket for service and maintenance has existed for centuries.1 In recent years, however, as electronics and software systems have integrated with mechanical systems like automobiles and tractors, the issue has gained prominence and urgency, with lawmakers and industry players staking positions on the issue. For example, legislation introduced by congressional Democrats would ensure consumers can have vehicles and electronic devices serviced by independent outlets by requiring open access to tools and technology. President Joe Biden has also expressed broad support for this initiative. The Federal Trade Commission also unanimously voted to prioritize manufacturer-imposed requirements for consumers to use licensed dealerships for repairs. While industry has generally opposed right-to-repair efforts, even that is changing. Other companies have responded by forming alliances -- such as the recent Tesla and Rivian pact -- that on their face expand aftermarket repair options but that some critics say still limit consumers from choosing completely independent repair shops.2 Not all developments have been in favor of greater rights to repairs. Last month, a federal judge in California dismissed a class action right-to-repair case against Tesla, finding plaintiffs failed to both plausibly allege that the Tesla aftermarket for repair services and Tesla-compatible parts is a cognizable single-brand aftermarket for purposes of Sherman Act and related state law claims.3 However, the plaintiffs were given leave to amend their complaint(s) to more adequately define the alleged aftermarket monopoly and explain how (a) "consumers are in fact unaware of the supposedly supracompetitive prices and exorbitant wait times" in servicing their vehicles, (b) "significant information costs prevent accurate life-cycle pricing," and (c) "consumers cannot switch between [electric vehicles] in the foremarket."4 Analysis of the Deere Decision John Deere's motion argued that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and antitrust standing, and further contended that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the existence of a relevant market. The district court's rejection of those arguments was significant in several ways. First, the court held the plaintiffs adequately pleaded a single-brand aftermarket. While Deere argued consumers were well-aware that repair options are limited, Judge Iain Johnston credited the "bait and switch theory" alleged by the plaintiffs and also found that: To the extent such a claim can be based on the lack of information preventing the consumer from determining the life cycle cost of the product, based on the Complaint's allegations -- particularly Deere's market power -- the Court finds Plaintiffs have stated a claim under this theory as well.5 The court determined from the allegations that Deere unfairly hampered aftermarket competition because of "a lack of forthrightness and/or the lack of consumer information to calculate life-cycle costs," despite the fact that customers are not even aware of their future maintenance needs at the time of purchase. Deere argued it never hid from consumers the range of available aftermarket service providers, but Judge Johnston appears to impose an affirmative obligation on Deere and others hoping to avoid antitrust scrutiny. Second, despite coming in the posture of a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, with litigation on the merits still unresolved, Judge Johnston went to great lengths to discuss cultural implications of this decision, noting the proximity of the Rockford courthouse to where John Deere built his first plow, and suggesting that it may preserve the "humble origins" of a 19th-century blacksmith's steel plow that unpredictably evolved into a 21st-century agricultural monopoly. The judge wrote, if the claims turn out to be meritorious, "the Court assumes the man lionized at the historic site [close to the courthouse] would be deeply disappointed in his namesake corporation." While choice of venue is often significant in high-stakes litigation, it seems especially notable that the court admittedly viewed this case through the lens of Deere's tradition as a local mechanical innovator. Finally, the court seized the opportunity to provide a more contemporary analysis of the decades-old but inconsistently applied Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule, which dictates that indirect purchasers "who are two or more steps removed [from the alleged violator] in a distribution chain may not sue" on antitrust violations.6 The court first made the threshold determination that the so-called conspiracy exception to the rule applied because Deere plaintiffs "are the type of party best suited to bring the claims" and are "the first purchasers into the [alleged] conspiracy" between the manufacturer and the dealers. Therefore, the Illinois Brick rule was inapplicable. The court nonetheless undertook the analysis to explain why John Deere-authorized dealerships need not be joined in this case. Judge Johnston admittedly embarked on this route to protect his ruling on appeal and to elucidate a perceived gap in decisional case law on the issue. After a lengthy summary of the persuasive cases on the issue, the court concluded that a fresh analysis was warranted: "The Court believes it is writing on a clean slate. It is not bound by any controlling authority under these circumstances. So to the extent the Court needs to determine this issue, it will."7 The court applied the three Illinois Brick factors and found, (1) "there is no risk of double recovery" from the dealerships and John Deere itself, (2) the failure to include the dealerships in the litigation "does not complicate damage calculations," and (3) "requiring the Dealerships to be joined as defendants would not increase enforcement of the antitrust statutes."8 Plaintiffs' failure to join John Deere dealerships as defendants was therefore immaterial. In concise fashion, the court provided what is likely to be one of the more useful -- and citable --applications of the Illinois Brick direct purchaser rule, just as the doctrine becomes increasingly central in future right-to-repair litigation. For More Information If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Sean P. McConnell, Christopher H. Casey, Brian H. Pandya, Joseph R. Welsh, any of the attorneys in our Antitrust and Competition Group or the attorney in the form with whom you are regularly in contact. [GN] KNIX WEAR: Settles PFAS Class Action for $1.4 Million ----------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Knix agreed to a $1.4 million settlement to resolve claims that its period underwear contains dangerous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been linked to serious health concerns. The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Knix products between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2022. According to the class action lawsuit, Knix period underwear products contain dangerous PFAS chemicals despite the manufacturer's promises that the underwear is free of toxic chemicals. PFAS chemicals have been linked to serious health problems such as birth complications, cancers and more. Knix is a period underwear brand. Knix hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.4 million settlement to resolve the PFAS class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to $5.30 for each Knix product they purchased, up to a maximum payment of $15.90. Each class member's claim form will indicate whether Knix has a record of their purchase or if they need to provide proof of purchase. As part of the settlement, Knix has also agreed to implement increased PFAS testing for two years. The company also agreed to remove references on its website to Knix products being PFAS-free, toxic chemical-free or fluorine-free. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 11, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for April 23, 2024. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 11, 2024. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased Knix products between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2022. Potential Award $15.90 Proof of Purchase Receipt, proof of online order, an email from Knix or another retailer or credit card statements for each transaction that must show the amount and date of the purchase, the seller and the style purchased. Claim Form CLICK LINK TO FILE A CLAIM: https://shorturl.at/gsW19 NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/11/2024 Case Name Spencer, et al. v. Knix Wear Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-07823-JLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Final Hearing 04/23/2024 Settlement Website KnixMarketingSettlement.com Claims Administrator KNS Settlement Administrator PO Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 877-392-0141 Class Counsel Erin Ruben Hunter Bryson Harper Segui Rachel Soffin MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN Defense Counsel Lauren S Colton HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP [GN] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Judge Asked to Publish Info in CPAP Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that the U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Philips CPAP recall lawsuits has been asked to publish information about a class action settlement, which will resolve economic loss claims for individuals who owned sleep apnea machines that contained a toxic sound abatement foam. However, the Philips CPAP settlement does not impact thousands of individual injury lawsuits being pursued over cancers, lung damage and other health problems caused by the machines. The litigation stems from a Philips recall issued in 2021, which impacted millions of the CPAP, BiPAP and mechanical ventilator machines that contained a defective polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam. Although the foam was intended to help reduce noise and vibrations, it has since been discovered that the foam tends to break down over time, releasing toxic particles and gases which may enter the machines' air pathways. In the wake of the recall, Philips has faced both personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits brought on behalf of former users diagnosed with certain injuries linked to inhaling the foam particles. However, the company also faces a Philips CPAP class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all owners of the recalled machines, seeking compensation for economic damages suffered by consumers, even if they have not been diagnosed with an injury. In September, Philips announced it will pay at least $445 million in a CPAP recall class action settlement to individuals who bought, rented or leased one of the impacted devices, and another $34 million to health insurance companies and others who paid to reimburse users to replace the machines. However, the deal has no impact on individuals' ability to continue pursuing personal injury lawsuits over cancers, respiratory disease and other side effects caused by Philips CPAP foam particles breaking down. Plaintiffs who are part of the class action lawsuits will receive $100 for each device they returned to Philips due to the recall, and another $50 to $1,500 in compensation, depending on the type of device the plaintiffs used. In addition, plaintiffs may be eligible for extended warranties on devices that were repaired or refurbished by the manufacturer. Philips CPAP Class Action Settlement Information All Philips CPAP lawsuits, both class action and individual claims, have been centralized before Senior U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti in the Western District of Pennsylvania, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). On December 7, the parties submitted a joint motion which asks Judge Conti to allow them to publish the economic loss class settlement notice on the court's website. Judge Conti granted preliminary approval to the settlement agreement in early October, and publishing of the information for access by potential participants is a standard procedure. However, in the motion, the parties also recommend that a final approval hearing be scheduled for April 11, 2024. The complete settlement order that would be published to the Court's website is attached to the joint motion as "Exhibit A". The agreement gives users until August 9, 2024 to enroll in the settlement agreement, return their device, and be rewarded with a $100 device return award and an additional device payment award, without the need to submit a claim form. The settlement provides additional instructions for those who did not return, and do not still have, their affected devices. Plaintiffs who wish to object to the settlement agreement have until February 7, 2024 to file their objections with the Court. Individual Philips CPAP Personal Injury Lawsuits Remain Unresolved While the parties appear on track to resolve the class action portion of the litigation, tens of thousands of individuals still have pending lawsuits indicating they suffered actual physical injuries due to their use of the recalled Philips CPAP devices. Philips executives have already indicated publicly that they hope to reach a settlement agreement that resolves all cases. In April, Philips CEO Roy Jakobs announced that the company planned to settle the class action litigation this year, and hoped to resolve the individual injury claims sometime in 2024. It is expected that the settlement to resolve the Philips CPAP personal injury lawsuits will far eclipse the economic loss settlement amount. However, if no agreement is reached to resolve a large majority of the individual claims, Judge Conti has also directed the parties to establish a Philips CPAP lawsuit bellwether process, where small groups of representative claims will be prepared for early trial dates if a global settlement is not reached. [GN] KROGER CO: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Mislabeled Smoked Gouda --------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that "copycat" and "frivolous" are some of the terms used by Kroger as it asks a federal judge to throw out a class action lawsuit over smoked gouda. The case is one of the latest filed by lawyer Spencer Sheehan, who has angered defendants and judges with his theories of consumer deception. Kroger, he says, unfairly uses smoke flavoring rather than smoking its gouda over hardwoods. Defendants of Sheehan's are increasingly pointing to his track record, which includes several hundred proposed class actions over things like pears and apples in strawberry Pop-Tarts and skim milk in the cheese in Bagel Bites and a judge calling him a "wrecking ball." Kroger's motion says he has filed eight similar lawsuits and has voluntarily dismissed most of them. "This time, Mr. Sheehan, along with (plaintiff Bridget Coburn), makes up a representation that does not appear on the label," attorneys for Kroger wrote Dec. 11 in St. Louis federal court. "Ms. Coburn claims the Smoked Gouda label is misleading because the front label statements 'Smoked Gouda' and 'distinct, smoky flavor' somehow led her to conclude the Smoked Gouda was smoked 'entirely' over hardwoods and not at all by liquid smoke. "But the label makes no mention of smoking over hardwoods, and the product discloses 'SMOKE FLAVOR' as an ingredient, dispelling any possible expectation that the Smoked Gouda is only smoked over hardwoods." Coburn alleges that consumers are misled because the defendant's statements on the label are identical to Gouda cheeses that get their smoked flavor from being "smoked over hardwoods" when Kroger's quality is not equal because it is added smoke flavor. She further alleges the defendant discloses the addition of smoked flavor on the back of the product label where customers are not likely to read. Coburn claims consumers are harmed by the defendant's actions because they pay a premium for the cheese. Kroger says Sheehan has filed "several hundred frivolous mislabeling lawsuits" in recent years. It says this one -- like others -- can't pass the "reasonable consumer" test needed for consumer deception claims and is "blatant forum-shopping." "Mr. Sheehan has been testing these cases in multiple jurisdictions (five against Kroger and Ralphs alone), then voluntarily dismissing and adjusting allegations based on the roadblocks he hits along the way," Kroger says. "(A)s a consequence of this forum-shopping, Kroger has been forced to repeatedly and needlessly expend resources to defend itself in these serial actions (including after being forced to brief summary judgment . . .)." Daniel Harvath is also representing the plaintiff. [GN] LA FONDA DELI: Faces Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- DAJANIA MARITZA ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA FONDA DELI CORP. and DANIA NUNEZ, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08763 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2023) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and its regulations. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide spread of hours compensation, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. Plaintiff Ortiz residing in Hicksville, New York, was employed by Defendants from November 2021 until November 2023. The Plaintiff's primary duties were as a food preparer, cook, waitress, and cleaner, while performing other miscellaneous duties. La Fonda Deli Corp. is a restaurant based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 LENSCRAFTERS INC: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- Katrina Morgan, writing for Verify, reports that Lenscrafters is a prescription eyewear company with over 1,000 locations across the United States. Multiple VERIFY readers, including Diane and Amanda, reached out to ask if messages they received in the mail about a $39 million AccuFit LensCrafters class action settlement were legitimate. THE QUESTION Is the LensCrafters class action settlement real? THE SOURCES LensCrafters AccuFit Class Action website United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York An article published by Dr. Amy Walden & Associates Indianapolis Eye Care Center THE ANSWER This is true. Yes, the LensCrafters class action settlement is real. Sign up for the VERIFY Fast Facts newsletter here. WHAT WE FOUND The LensCrafters class action settlement notices going out by mail and email are legitimate. The official AccuFit class action website shares documents of both the email notice and the postcard notice that are both currently being sent out. Customers who used the AccuFit Digital Measurement System to purchase glasses from Lenscrafters between Sept. 5, 2013 and Sept. 20, 2023 qualify for the settlement. In September 2017, LensCrafters customers in the United States began filing claims after using the company's AccuFit Digital Measurement System, which LensCrafters says "digitally measures the exact location of your pupils, the spacing of your eyes, and the shape of your glasses so we can place your prescription in your lenses exactly where you need it to see your best." An article published by Dr. Amy Walden & Associates Indianapolis Eye Care Center further explains the system, saying that it captures digital images from different angles of your face, while trying on different frames. LensCrafters says the system "measures your eyes five times more precisely than traditional methods, down to a tenth of a millimeter." But customers claimed these statements were misleading and they "would not have purchased [their] prescription glasses from LensCrafters and/or would not have paid as much" if they had not seen the ads about the AccuFit system, according to the settlement website. The claims were consolidated into a larger class action lawsuit, which was overseen by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The two parties ultimately agreed on a $39,000,000 settlement. In September, a preliminary approval for the class action settlement was set and notices began being sent out. Before the settlement can be paid out, the judge overseeing the settlement must approve it. The approval date is currently set for Feb. 26, 2024, according to a United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York document. Once approved, each LensCrafters customer who submits an approved claim will receive up to $50 for each set of prescription glasses purchased from LensCrafters after using AccuFit between Sept. 5, 2013 and Sept. 20, 2023. To be excluded from the settlement, requests must be mailed by Feb. 5, 2024. The current timeline on the AccuFit class action website shows that claim forms must be submitted by March 27, 2024; 30 days after the final approval order. Claims can be filled out online or by mail. Customers must provide proof of purchase by submitting either a copy of the receipt, or a statement under penalty of perjury that the purchase was made. If you have any additional questions about the LensCrafters class action settlement, you can contact the administrator by phone at 833-933-8668 or via email at info@accufitclassaction.com. [GN] LIFELABS: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on April 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Abby O'Brien, writing for CTV News, reports that Canadian LifeLabs customers who had their data breached in a 2019 cyberattack may be eligible for compensation after an Ontario court certified a class-action settlement in October. In a notice issued by LifeLabs on Dec. 11, the company said Canadian residents who used its services on or before Dec. 17, 2019 may be eligible for compensation. The distribution of up to $9.8 million in settlements was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in October as part of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of up to 8.6 million LifeLabs customers whose data had been possibly breached or stolen in a 2019 cyberattack. The breach was first made public in a 2019 announcement by LifeLabs, but had been discovered months earlier, the company said at the time. LifeLabs confirmed it paid a ransom for the data, the amount of which was undisclosed. Less than a month after news of the attack, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company claiming its cybersecurity measures were inadequate. LifeLabs denied all allegations. In 2020, Ontario and B.C.'s privacy commissioners found that LifeLabs had broken privacy laws by failing to put sufficient safeguards in place on patient data. The commissioners' ordered LifeLabs to implement new safety measures and "improve its process for notifying individuals of the specific elements of their personal health information which were the subject of the breach." In August, LifeLabs announced a settlement had been proposed(opens in a new tab) in the class action proceedings. Under the proposal, LifeLabs would "not admit . . . any allegation of unlawful conduct" or liability. HOW TO FIND OUT IF YOU'RE A LIFELABS CLASS-ACTION MEMBER If you live in Canada and were a LifeLabs customer on or before Dec. 17, 2019, you will need to submit a claim to find out if you're a verified class-action member. A claims administrator assesses each claim for eligibility. HOW LONG ARE CLAIMS BEING ACCEPTED? You can submit a claim between now and April 6, 2024. HOW DO I SUBMIT A CLAIM? First, you must fill in a claim form. You will need a valid provincial health card number. The form requires claimants to choose whether they would prefer payment by e-transfer or cheque. Once a form is filled out, it can be submitted online at https://lifelabssettlement.kpmg.ca, emailed to lifelabssettlement@kpmg.ca, or mailed to: KPMG INC., a subsidiary of KPMG LLP C/O LifeLabs Claims Administrator 600 boul. de Maisonneuve West, Suite 1500 Montréal, Québec, H3A 0A3 HOW MUCH WILL BE PAID OUT IN COMPENSATION? Each eligible claimant who submits a form on time will receive an estimated compensation of $50, up to a maximum of $150. The company said the precise amount paid to each person will be determined based on the total number of claims filed. Compensation is subject to court-approved legal fees, disbursements and taxes. WHEN WILL I BE PAID IF ELIGIBLE? Payments will be made after April 26, 2024 to those verified as class members. With files from CTV News' Michael Lee. [GN] LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Morris Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MORRIS & JANA L. MORRIS, AS JOINT TENANTS WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP, Plaintiffs v. LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, GARRY MAURO, STEVEN R. FIFE, MICHAEL A. BEINDORFF, ERIN BROCKOVICH, RAYMOND B. GREER, CINDY LATHAM, and DARWIN K. LEWIS, Defendants, Case No. 2023-1195 (Del. Ch., Nov. 29, 2023) is a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, as Joint Tenants With Right of Survivorship, holders of LifeVantage Corporation's preferred share purchase rights for shares of the Company's common stock and of the Company's common stock, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of the Company against LifeVantage and members of the Company's board of directors for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law. Under Delaware law the directors of a for-profit corporation are bound by fiduciary duties and standards particular to such corporations. As alleged in this complaint, the Company's currently effective stockholder rights plan, or the Rights Agreement, adopted and maintained by Defendants and ratified by the Company's stockholders, has a provision which purports to eliminate the liability of LifeVantage directors for breaches of fiduciary duty in violation of DGCL Sections 102(b)(7) and 141(a). The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other holders of the preferred share purchase rights pursuant to the Rights Agreement against LifeVantage and members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the relevant Rights Agreement provision violates Delaware law and public policy and is invalid, says the suit. LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research, development and distribution of advanced nutraceutical dietary supplements and skin and hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 Facsimile: (302) 984-3939 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com LINKEDIN CORP: Agrees to Settle ERISA Class Action for $6.75MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Ginger Christ, writing for HRDive, reports that LinkedIn Corp. will pay $6.75 million to more than 17,000 current and former employees to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging the company violated its fiduciary duties in the management of a participant-directed 401(k) plan, according to court documents filed on Dec. 13. The social media company allegedly acted "imprudently" in its handling of the investments by selecting riskier funds with higher fees, violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the order signed by Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California. Plaintiffs estimated the company owed the class between $3.9 million and $15.9 million in damages, according to court documents. "At LinkedIn, we work to provide our employees with access to opportunities to build the future they want. While we don't agree with the claims made in the legal matter regarding LinkedIn's former 401(k) plan, we decided a settlement was the best path forward," a company spokesperson said in an emailed statement. ERISA sets minimum standards that covered retirement and health plans must meet to ensure participants' and beneficiaries' interests are protected. In June, the Kraft Heinz Co. sued insurer Aetna for allegedly "breach[ing] its fiduciary duties and engag[ing]in prohibited transactions" in its administration of Kraft Heinz's self-funded medical and dental plans, benefiting itself at the expense of Kraft Heinz. That litigation is ongoing. In August 2022, the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against the owner of a New Jersey design firm and her spouse for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty by investing most of the assets of an employee profit-sharing plan in a bank the spouse owned, costing the plan more than $17 million after the bank's shares nosedived, according to the lawsuit. The couple settled the lawsuit for more than $2 million. [GN] LIVE NATION: Taylor Swift Fan Drops Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bill Donahue, writing for Billboard, reports that a Taylor Swift fan who filed a class action against Ticketmaster parent Live Nation in the wake of last year's disastrous presale of tickets to the Eras Tour has agreed to drop her case against the concert giant, months after attorneys on the case said they were engaged in settlement talks. Swift fan Michelle Sterioff filed her case in December 2022 just weeks after the botched Eras rollout, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried -- and many failed -- to buy tickets. At the time, her lawyers blasted Live Nation as a "monopoly" that had "knowingly misled millions of fans." But a year later, Sterioff voluntarily asked a federal judge on Dec. 12 to dismiss her case. It's unclear if a settlement was reached, but the two sides reported in August that they were engaged in "ongoing settlement discussions." Neither side immediately returned requests for comment. Sterioff's proposed class action was just one piece of the legal fallout for Live Nation following the error-plagued presale for Eras, which went on the earn hundreds of millions of dollars and dominate headlines as 2023's biggest concert tour. After the Nov. 22, 2022 incident, Live Nation quickly apologized to fans and pinned the blame on a "staggering number of bot attacks" and "unprecedented traffic." But lawmakers in Washington and state attorneys general around the country quickly called for investigations. That included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, who suggest that regulators consider "breaking up the company" -- a reference to Live Nation's 2010 merger with Ticketmaster. Days after the incident, the New York Times reported that DOJ had already been investigating Live Nation for months over potential antitrust violations, reaching out to venues across the country to ask about the company's conduct. Last month, Reuters reported that the probe was ongoing, with federal investigators focusing on whether Live Nation imposed anticompetitive agreements on venues. A Senate subcommittee investigation is also underway, sending out subpoenas last month demanding info about the company's "failure to combat artificially inflated demand fueled by bots in multiple, high-profile incidents." Sterioff's case was one of two major class actions filed against Live Nation over the Eras ticket rollout. In her complaint, she accused the company of violating consumer protection and antitrust laws, calling Ticketmaster a "monopoly that is only interested in taking every dollar it can from a captive public." "Because Ticketmaster has exclusive agreements with virtually all venues capable of accommodating large concerts, Taylor Swift and other popular musicians have no choice but to sell their tickets through Ticketmaster, and their fans have no choice but to purchase tickets through Ticketmaster's primary ticketing platform," her lawyers wrote. Sterioff's lawsuit claimed that Live Nation has exploited that dominance to charge "ever more supracompetitive ticketing fees for both primary and secondary ticketing services," including for "virtually all venues hosting ‘The Eras' Tour." But the lawsuit has largely been paused for months. In August, both sides agreed that it would be better to wait to litigate the case after a federal appeals court rules on a separate antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation, which will decide whether the company can force ticketbuyers to resolve such legal claims in private arbitration rather than open court. The other class action over the Eras debacle, filed by an outspoken fan named Julie Barfuss and more than two dozen other spurned Swifities, remains pending in California federal court. In her complaint, Barfuss went even further than Sterioff, claiming Live Nation had tacitly allowed the kind of mass-scalping that caused so many problems during the presale. "Ticketmaster has stated that it has taken steps to address this issue, but in reality, has taken steps to make additional profit from the scalped tickets," Barfuss' lawyer wrote. "Instead of competition, Ticketmaster has conspired with stadiums to force fans to buy more expensive tickets that Ticketmaster gets additional fees from every time the tickets are resold." [GN] LOAN DEPOT: Faces Class Actions Over Deceptive Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noted trial attorney Rogge Dunn has filed two class action lawsuits in state court in Dallas County against Loan Depot, Inc., and Cardinal Financial Corporation alleging the companies violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims of negligent misrepresentation and gross negligence against Texas homeowners. According to the lawsuit, Loan Depot, Inc. (NYSE: LDI) and Cardinal Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: CFNL) provided financial services to hundreds of thousands of individuals to induce them into entering refinancing agreements where they would encourage borrowers to skip the first one or two payments on their new loan, resulting in the borrower paying added interest over the course of the loan. The filing alleges both companies, "made promises and representations, and/or failed to provide important and relevant information to Plaintiffs and the other members of the class relative to the Transactions. Many of the deceived borrowers are veterans who had VA loans. The false statements were made to induce Plaintiffs and the other members of the class to induce them into entering the Transactions." The negative results of the "skipped" payments were never disclosed to the borrowers but collectively benefited the lenders by tens of millions of dollars. Both companies have rejected the class's efforts to seek an amicable solution. Plaintiffs in the litigation include two Dallas County residents, a Bexar County resident and a Taylor County resident. "When you trust big companies with expertise and industry knowledge, you expect them to be honest and give sound advice," said Mr. Dunn, a nationally recognized litigator for his representation of high-level executives and companies in business disputes. "Instead, Loan Depot and Cardinal Financial used their position to exploit homeowners to their own benefit." The firm expects more plaintiffs to be added to the class, adding to the damages. Therefore, the relief category is currently subject to being amended. The cases are Angela Colonna, et al. vs. Loan Depot, inc., et al., and Bernard Guinard, et al. vs. Cardinal Financial Company, L.P. Both cases were filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Rogge Dunn Group, PC Rogge Dunn Group has built a well-deserved reputation for aggressive litigation, outstanding results, and attentive client service. Led by founding partner Rogge Dunn, the firm is well-known for successfully trying high-profile business, financial, and employment disputes. This trial experience fosters innovative strategies to obtain effective settlements and minimize litigation risks for corporate and individual clients. Based in Dallas, the firm tries cases in state and federal courts in Texas and throughout the United States. Learn more about the firm at www.roggedunngroup.com. [GN] MAT ASPHALT: Judge Approves $1.2MM Deal in Noxious Odor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Asimow, writing for Block Club Chicago, reports that a Cook County Circuit Court judge has preliminarily approved a $1.2 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against a controversial McKinley Park asphalt plant that neighbors alleged caused noxious odors and polluted the area. The settlement, agreed upon in early November, applies to any resident who lives within a half-mile radius of MAT Asphalt, 2055 W. Pershing Road. The facility is situated across the street from McKinley Park and makes hot-mix asphalt, among other industrial products. The original complaint, filed in 2020 by resident Tanisha Rodriguez, alleged that fumes and odors from the facility created a nuisance for neighbors. The lawsuit sought damages for any resident living within a mile radius of the facility, and included testimony from Rodriguez and other neighbors, who said the odors smelled like sulfur and ammonia, interrupted their sleep and prevented them from opening windows or going outside. With the settlement agreement, lawyers from the Detroit-based law office of Liddle Sheets Coulson P.C. are now requesting that neighbors interested in the payout file a claim form to receive compensation from the settlement fund. The form must be postmarked by Jan. 22. Further details on eligibility and the claim process can be found on the law firm's website. The settlement also requires that MAT Asphalt make approximately $900,000 worth of improvements to the facility by April 30. Those improvements include a "blue smoke control system" atop its hot-mix silo, a dust control plan, a rule that all trucks leaving the facility must use tarp covers and the planting of 25 additional trees on the site, among other changes. MAT Asphalt has denied all wrongdoing, and residents who opt-in to the settlement will waive their right to sue MAT Asphalt in a separate legal action. The settlement states that MAT Asphalt agreed to the settlement to avoid the costs of protracted litigation. A spokesman for MAT Asphalt reiterated that the plant's emissions are below regulatory limits. In a statement, co-owner Michael Tadin, Jr. said the company settled with neighbors to avoid the costs of protracted litigation. "We reiterate what the settlement states: MAT Asphalt vigorously denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability," Tadin said in the statement. "Rather than engage in unproductive litigation, we will continue to focus on delivering more of the cost-effective, industry-leading service that we have provided to the city of Chicago since 2018." Since its opening in 2018, the hot-mix facility has been a flashpoint among neighbors and environmental activists, who said they were blindsided when they didn't receive warning that it would apply for a pollution permit. In the years since, the facility has maintained close ties with the city despite continuing to draw the ire of nearby residents, who have framed its operation within the context of the environmental justice movement. A 2020 study showed that environmental polluters are often located in neighborhoods with larger populations of color, particularly Latino populations. The population of McKinley Park on the city's Southwest Side is approximately 55 percent Latino and 30 percent Asian, according to the Chicago Agency for Metropolitan Planning. Earlier this year, the city awarded MAT Asphalt $141 million in contracts to provide asphalt for road repaving on the same day the Chicago Department of Public Health finalized a settlement with the company, requiring it to pay $20,000 in fines and institute other environmental improvements at the site. The required improvements were similar to those mandated in the recent settlement with neighbors, and include odor condensers and a system to control "blue smoke," which is a common emission from asphalt plants. The plant is located about a mile east of the proposed migrant tent camp in Brighton Park that the state nixed after a report raised environmental concerns about mercury and other chemicals in the soil at the site. [GN] MERCURY SYSTEMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 14 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Mercury Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRCY) between December 7, 2020 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 12, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased Mercury 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 Mercury class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21166 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 February 12, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Mercury's business and operations. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Mercury's serial acquiror strategy was not working and Mercury was using improper revenue recognition practices such as changing to long-term contracts to mask deteriorating organic growth; (2) the acquisition would cause Physical Optics Corporation ("POC") to lose its small business accreditation, which would prevent POC from winning contracts that made up a large portion of its historical business; (3) Mercury had at least twenty programs that were suffering and not performing well; (4) Mercury's 1MPACT strategic growth initiative to increase margins was not working and was in fact cutting into margins; and (5) as result, Mercury's statements about its financial performance and its ability to meet its lofty projections were based on false assumptions. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Mercury class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21166 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. 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] MERCURY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- Institutional investor and defined benefit pension fund North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighters' Pension Plan filed a class action lawsuit against Mercury Systems, Inc. ("Mercury" or the "Company"), Mark Aslett, and Michael Ruppert, alleging they defrauded investors by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the state of Mercury's business and financial results. The suit, brought in federal court in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts was filed by leading investor law firm Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired Mercury common stock between December 7, 2020 and June 23, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is captioned North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighters' Pension Plan v. Mercury Systems, Inc., Mark Aslett, and Michael Ruppert, 1:23-cv-13065 (D. Mass.). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, Mercury is a technology company that produces component modules and subsystems for the aerospace and defense industries. Prior to and during the Class Period, Mercury was a serial acquirer that used acquisitions and improper revenue recognition practices to mask its inability to grow organically. During the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the success of the Company's growth, painting a false rosy financial picture for investors. Defendants repeatedly misled investors to believe that their growth was organic by misrepresenting several elements of Mercury's business, including by hiding that Mercury had switched from "point-in-time" to "long-term contracts" in order to improperly boost reported revenues and that several of Mercury's projects were in significant distress, including projects related to Mercury's acquisition of Physical Optics Corporation. Mercury also lied to investors about its strategic growth initiative, 1MPACT, which was designed to improve profit margins but unbeknownst to investors was used to disguise regular expenses as restructuring costs, enabling Mercury to claim that recurring expenses were one-time costs. The market was thus shocked when Glasshouse Research issued a short seller report on July 26, 2022 that revealed the truth of these issues. The issuance of the report from Glasshouse Research caused Mercury's stock to drop 7.8%. The full truth of the state of Mercury's business was then revealed piecemeal to the market through several partial disclosures that took place between July 26, 2022 and June 23, 2023. During this time, the Company's share price declined nearly 50%, wiping out billions of dollars in market capitalization and damaging investors. For investors who purchased or acquired Mercury common stock during the Class Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than February 12, 2024, which is the lead plaintiff deadline that was established by publication of this notice on December 13, 2023. You do not need seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Caitlin M. Moyna at Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8513, or via email at cmoyna@gelaw.com. Contacts: Grant & Eisenhofer Caitlin M. Moyna 646-722-8513 cmoyna@gelaw.com [GN] MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Edge Retirement Accounts --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Corbin, writing for Barrons, reports that an investor is suing Merrill Lynch for breach of contract, alleging that the firm offered paltry interest rates on cash sweep accounts held by retirement clients in the self-directed Merrill Edge channel. The lawsuit, brought by Margaret McCrary, a Merrill client in Michigan who rolled over her 401(k) account to an IRA with the brokerage, seeks certification as a class action that would represent investors who held Merrill Edge retirement accounts since March 2022. [GN] META PLATFORMS: RCSD Joins Class Suit Over Social Media Addiction ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alek Lewis, writing for RiverheadLOCAL, reports that The Riverhead Central School District is joining a federal class action lawsuit against technology companies to pursue damages for the harm social media platforms have on adolescent mental health. The Riverhead Board of Education on Dec. 12 authorized "social media" litigation against confidential parties and approved a contract with Frantz Law Group, a California-based personal injury law firm to represent the district, and the district's counsel, Guercio & Guercio LLP. School board president Colin Palmer confirmed the district was joining the class action against major social media companies such as Facebook, Google, TikTok, Instagram, Roblox, Snapchat and other affiliated people and companies. The lawsuit alleges the platforms are designed to addict children and teens, lack meaningful parental controls and other safeguards, and knowingly harm kids. Frantz Law Group joined the litigation on behalf of other school districts earlier this year. Other school districts and more than half the states in the country have joined the lawsuit, including New York State. Under the agreement with the district, Frantz Law Group will receive 25% of any settlement or recovery obtained in the lawsuit and Guercio & Guercio will receive 25% of net attorney fees for acting as co-counsel. The district is not responsible for paying any money to Frantz Law Group other than what is recovered in a settlement. "So if it doesn't go anywhere, it's no skin off the district's back. We're not liable for anything financially," Palmer said. "No one wants to lose out on money to benefit the taxpayers, and the district's interested," Eric Levine of Guercio & Guercio said. The lawsuit comes as the concern about the impacts of social media, especially on younger adults, reaches a tipping point. U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued an advisory on the risk social media can have on youth mental health in May and called for action to better understand the full impact of social media's use on mental health. "The most common question parents ask me is, 'is social media safe for my kids'. The answer is that we don't have enough evidence to say it's safe, and in fact, there is growing evidence that social media use is associated with harm to young people's mental health," Murthy said in a press release announcing the advisory. "Children are exposed to harmful content on social media, ranging from violent and sexual content, to bullying and harassment. And for too many children, social media use is compromising their sleep and valuable in-person time with family and friends. We are in the middle of a national youth mental health crisis, and I am concerned that social media is an important driver of that crisis -- one that we must urgently address." [GN] MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for February 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson Fistel, LLP notifies investors of Microvast Holdings, Inc. ("Microvast") (NASDAQ: MVST) that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed. According to the complaint and throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was a reasonable likelihood that Microvast would not be awarded the DOE grant after due diligence was performed; (2) negotiations between Microvast and the DOE had ceased and the grant had been rescinded; and (3) Microvast misrepresented the nature and profitability of its businesses and partnerships. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of investors who acquired securities between October 19, 2022 and November 20, 2023. Investors have until February 5, 2024, to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. If you would like to review the complaint and join the class action please follow the link below for more information: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/microvast-holdings There is no cost or obligation to you. What can Investors Do: Shareholders who incurred losses during the class period, have until February 5, 2024, to move the court to become a lead plaintiff in this action. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney responsible for its content. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq., (619) 814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN] MINOL INC: Dematties Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- BERNADETTE DEMATTIES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINOL, INC. d/b/a MINOL USA, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-021758 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between those hours. As such, by and through each of the electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, says the suit. Minol, Inc. offers billing services. The Company provides submetering, utility billing, expense management, water conservation, and property management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com MOBILE PHLEBOTOMY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Rayford Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- TONZANIA RAYFORD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MOBILE PHLEBOTOMY OF CENTRAL MICHIGAN LLC (AKA MPCM SERVICES), AMANDA BREASBOIS, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01067 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by administering a uniform policy of failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals time and one-half their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and a collective of similarly situated individuals who have performed phlebotomy services and have been misclassified as independent contractors for Defendants who may opt-in to this case under the federal FLSA. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Lansing, Michigan who provided phlebotomy services for Defendant in Michigan while classified as an "independent contractor" from November 2022 until April 2023. Mobile Phlebotomy of Central Michigan LLC provides mobile phlebotomy services to businesses throughout Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. Kelly R. McClintock, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com mcclintock@bwlawonline.com MONSANTO CO: Ontario Court Certifies Roundup Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Isabelle Docto, writing for DH Canada, reports that a new class-action lawsuit against a common weed control brand could give some Canadians extra cash. Toronto-based law firm Koskie Minsky LLP announced on Dec. 12 that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a national class-action lawsuit against Monsanto and Bayer, the companies that produce Roundup weed control. The lawsuit alleges that Roundup products, which are glyphosate-based herbicides, cause non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). It was launched in 2019 and officially certified as a class action by courts on December 11. The judge presiding over the case said a class proceeding would provide "easier access to justice" and that "it is bound to be more economical than the pursuit of multiple individual claims." "Lawsuits of this kind are not for the faint of heart. As is clear from the experience in the United States so far, glyphosate litigation has been hard fought," said Justice Grace in his decision. The class action against the weed control brand is brought on behalf of individuals who have been exposed to glyphosate-based products distributed and sold by Monsanto and Bayer. Jeffrey DeBlock, an NHL survivor, represents the lawsuit. According to Koskie Minsky LLP, he was diagnosed with NHL when he was just 17 years old, after using Roundup during his summer job on a local farm. After his diagnosis, DeBlock went through extensive treatment, "which has permanently impacted his health and quality of life." The lawsuit says he started the class action to seek justice on his behalf as well as others. "The certification decision is a significant milestone in our effort to hold Monsanto and Bayer accountable for the alleged harm caused by Roundup," says Jonathan Ptak, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as "probably carcinogenic to humans." The lawsuit alleges that the companies either knew or should have known that significant exposure to Roundup weed control products causes cancer, in particular, NHL. Despite this knowledge, the lawsuit claims that the defendants continued to distribute and sell these products without providing sufficient warnings about their potential cancer risks. The lawsuit also alleges that Monsanto and Bayer engaged in years of deceptive practices to mislead the public about the safety of Roundup to safeguard their profits. Could you be eligible for compensation in this weed control class action? According to Koskie Minsky LLP, the class action includes both those who have developed NHL after significant exposure to Roundup and those who have not. "Significant exposure" to the weed control is defined in the lawsuit as "the application of Roundup on more than two occasions in a 12-month period and more than 10 occasions in a lifetime." If you fall under these categories, you can call 1-833-630-1783 or email roundupclassaction@kmlaw.ca to be included in the class action. There are no specifics yet as to how much Canadians could get if there is a settlement. "Our legal team is committed to vigorously representing Mr. DeBlock and all class members. This lawsuit is not only about seeking compensation for past wrongs but also about ensuring corporate accountability and public safety going forward," said Ptak. "The extensive evidence presented in our certification motion underscores the gravity of the allegations and the importance of this case." [GN] NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Challenges Subscription List Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Quinn Wilson writing for Law360, reports that The National Association of Realtors says it did not violate privacy laws and that a Michigan federal judge should side with it in a proposed class action accusing it of illegally selling its members' personal information. [GN] NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: Faces Labor Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego labor law attorneys at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against The Neighborhood House Association (hereinafter, "Neighborhood House Association") for allegedly failing to provide meal and rest breaks. The class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2023-00051180-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here. According to the lawsuit, Neighborhood House Association allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) reimburse for required business expenses; (5) provide wages when due; and (6) provide accurate itemized wage statements. As a result of their rigorous work schedules, Neighborhood House Association's employees were allegedly unable to take off duty rest breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for rest periods. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges employees were required from time-to-time to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods as a result of their overburdened work requirements and inadequate staffing. Further, the lawsuit alleges these employees were denied their first rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours from time to time, a first and second rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of between six (6) and eight (8) hours from time to time, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for some shifts worked of ten (10) hours or more from time to time. Additionally, Neighborhood House Association's employees were also allegedly not provided with one-hour wages in lieu thereof. As a result of their allegedly rigorous work schedules and inadequate staffing, Neighborhood House Association's employees were from time to time allegedly denied their proper rest periods by Neighborhood House Association. If you would like to know more about the Neighborhood House Association lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by calling (619) 255-9047. Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and employment law firms with offices located in California that dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices. Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. -THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 7.2)- Media Contact: Jackland Hom, Zakay Law Group, APLC, (619) 255-9047, jackland@zakaylaw.com, https://zakaylaw.com/ [GN] NESTLE HEALTHCARE: 9th Circuit Panel Revives False Ad Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that a Ninth Circuit panel on Dec. 13 revived a proposed class action alleging Nestle tricked Boost Glucose Control drink buyers into thinking the beverage can treat diabetes, saying the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the labeling at issue was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class of CFI Waiver Members Certified in Fitzmorris ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Paul J. Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire certifies a class of CFI Waiver participants in the lawsuit styled Emily Fitzmorris, et al., Plaintiffs v. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Lori Weaver, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025-PB (D.N.H.). The Plaintiffs in this putative class action are disabled individuals, who are enrolled in New Hampshire's Choices for Independence (CFI) Waiver program, a Medicaid program administered by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The CFI Waiver program provides home and community-based care services to adults, who would otherwise be Medicaid-eligible for nursing home care. The Plaintiffs contend that DHHS's deficient operation of the CFI Waiver program has caused participants to be deprived of necessary medical services in violation of the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs filed an initial motion for class certification, which Judge Barbadoro denied without prejudice after finding that they failed to establish commonality as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). The Plaintiffs have now filed a renewed motion for class certification, supported by additional evidence. The Named Plaintiffs, Emily Fitzmorris and Kathleen Bates, are disabled New Hampshire residents, who have been authorized to receive a range of waiver services pursuant to the CFI Waiver program. Fitzmorris is a 38-year-old mother, who became a tetraplegic as a result of an accident in 2018. She uses an electric wheelchair and requires assistance transferring from her bed to her wheelchair, emptying and cleaning her urinary catheter, dressing, bathing, preparing meals, and maintaining a clean home. To meet these needs, Fitzmorris's case management agency determined that she requires 68 hours per week of home care services. Nonetheless, since 2019, Fitzmorris has only received a "small portion" of her authorized CFI Waiver services during the weekdays, and almost no services on the weekends. Ms. Bates is 61 years-old and has been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and quadriplegia. She works as a disability advocate and lives alone in her two-bedroom home. Bates uses a wheelchair and requires assistance transferring from her bed to her wheelchair, toileting, bathing, and dressing. She has been authorized to receive 49 hours of waiver services each week, but often receives less because her service providers quit unexpectedly or simply do not show up. The Named Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, alleging that they and their fellow class members "suffer protracted delays in the onset of all or part of their waiver services, frequent interruptions in their waiver services, and/or the unexpected cessation of their waiver services." They allege that these so-called "service gaps" place them at a serious risk of unjustified institutionalization and are the result of the Defendants' maladministration of the CFI Waiver program. The Plaintiffs allege various violations of Title II, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132; and the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1396(a)(8). Counts I and III of their complaint allege violations of the integration mandate. Counts II and IV allege violations of the methods of administration regulation. Count V alleges violations of the Medicaid Act's reasonable promptness requirement. Each of these claims center on the Defendants' alleged failure to provide CFI Waiver participants with the services they have been authorized to receive. The complaint also alleges that the Defendants violated the Medicaid Act (Count VII) and the Due Process Clause (Count VI) by failing to notify the Plaintiffs of their right to a hearing to challenge the Defendants' failure to close their service gaps. Judge Barbadoro granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on those counts in a prior order (Fitzmorris v. Weaver, 2023 DNH 025, 2023 WL 2665397, *1 (D.N.H. Mar. 28, 2023)). The Plaintiffs filed an initial motion for class certification that argued class action treatment was appropriate because every member of the class shared a serious risk of institutionalization as a result of the Defendants' systematic failure to provide them with the services they were authorized to receive under the CFI Waiver program. Judge Barbadoro concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish commonality as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) because they did not offer sufficient evidence that the class was uniformly subjected to a common policy or practice that allegedly drives their shared harm. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion, but without prejudice to their ability to file a renewed motion supported by evidence of drivers common to either the class as a whole or discrete subclasses. The Plaintiffs have now filed a renewed motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). They seek to certify a class of CFI Waiver participants who, during the pendency of this lawsuit, have been placed at serious risk of unjustified institutionalization because the Defendants, by act or omission, fail to ensure that the CFI participants receive the community-based long term care services and supports through the waiver program for which they have been found eligible and assessed to need. The Defendants object, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs assert that class certification is warranted under Rule 23(b)(2) because their claims arise out of system-wide practices that cause class members to suffer service gaps in violation of Title II, Section 504, and the Medicaid Act. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' proposed class does not satisfy the implicit requirements of class certification because the class cannot be ascertained by reference to objective criteria and, moreover, constitutes an impermissible "fail-safe" class. They further assert that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the numerosity, typicality, or commonality requirements, nor have they demonstrated that their class fits within the confines of Rule 23(b)(2). Judge Barbadoro holds that even if the Defendants are correct that identifying class members would require individualized litigation, it would not warrant the denial of class certification. Judge Barbadoro declines to deny the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the basis of any implied requirements of Rule 23 and proceed to consider whether the textual requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) are satisfied. Judge Barbadoro also finds that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied. For these reasons, the parties' respective motions to exclude expert opinions are denied and the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is granted. The Court certifies the class of: 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 through the waiver program for which they have been found eligible and assessed to need. Plaintiffs Emily Fitzmorris and Kathleen Bates are appointed as class representatives, and their chosen counsel are appointed as class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yrn63drafrom PacerMonitor.com. NEW ZEALAND: Christchurch High Court OKs Suit Over Land Damage -------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Gangcuangco, writing for InsuranceBusiness, reports that a class action against Toka Tu Ake EQC, also known as the Earthquake Commission of New Zealand, has been authorised by the Christchurch High Court. "Leave is granted to the plaintiffs to bring this proceeding against EQC as a representative action on behalf of all persons who meet the class definition," Associate Judge Paulsen, referring to plaintiffs Lucinda McEvedy and Andrew Freer, said in her judgment on Dec. 14. Represented by insurance lawyer Grant Shand and Andrew Barker KC, McEvedy and Freer -- whose property in Shirley suffered increased liquefaction vulnerability (ILV) land damage in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and whose claim was settled by EQC in 2017 by payment of its assessment of the diminution of value (DOV) of the land -- were found suitable to advance the common issues on behalf of the represented class. The common issues were outlined in the 44-page judgment seen by Insurance Business. In a release, Shand's camp said the case "could be one of the largest class actions New Zealand has ever seen," given that EQC, as indicated in the court document, settled over 99.5% of all ILV claims on a DOV basis. Following the greenlight, Shand commented: "Our clients believed it was wrong for EQC to settle land claims the way it did and continues to do so. It used, for the first time in EQC history, a process that settles land damaged by crust thinning or increased liquefaction vulnerability by a diminution of value methodology and not what it actually costs to repair the land. "The judge has found that there are issues common across thousands of EQC land claims and therefore a class action is appropriate." He went on to point out: "EQC paid McEvedy and Freer just $22,000 for their land damage and, had the assessment been undertaken correctly, that figure should have been at least $160,000. And of the in excess of 13,000 properties assessed with ILV land damage, only 15 received money based on the actual cost to repair their land." It was ruled that the representative action should proceed on an opt-out basis, i.e. anyone who meets the definition is an outright class member unless they opt out. "As this is an opt-out class action, it's likely the numbers involved will be significant," Shand said. According to the judgment, the plaintiffs are to file and serve any memoranda addressing directions for the future conduct of the proceeding by January 19, 2024. The EQC, which has not issued a statement on the judgment as of this writing, will have until February 2 to file and serve their memoranda in response. The plaintiffs can then reply by February 9. [GN] ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 14 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock of ON Semiconductor Corporation ("onsemi") (NASDAQ: ON) between May 1, 2023 and October 27, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 12, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased onsemi 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 onsemi class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21160 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 February 12, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about onsemi's business and operations. Specifically, defendants misrepresented that: (1) revenues from billions of dollars in reported long-term supply agreements ("LTSAs") were "committed" and "locked in," and were effectively certain to be obtained by onsemi when, in fact, onsemi could and would abrogate the LTSAs at a customer's request; (2) LTSAs provided "predictable" and "sustainable" performance to drive onsemi's growth, even in tough macroeconomic conditions, when, in fact, they would be modified or eliminated as conditions changed; and (3) defendants had "good visibility" into customer demand when, in fact, demand could be reduced on short notice, even where LTSAs were in effect. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the onsemi class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21160 mailto: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] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Metamucil False Advertising Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that The Procter & Gamble Co. is facing a class action lawsuit alleging its fiber supplement Metamucil is falsely advertised as being safe and effective yet fails to disclose to consumers that the product contains dangerous amounts of lead. Plaintiff Regina Pellegrino says she purchased orange-flavored Metamucil made with real sugar on multiple occasions between 2020 and 2022. She says she relied on P&G's claims that the product was safe and healthy for consumption and would provide the advertised health benefits. Had she known that the Metamucil product contained unsafe levels of lead, she would not have purchased it or paid a premium for it, the Metamucil class action lawsuit alleges. Metamucil lead content poses health risks, plaintiff says Lead exposure reportedly poses a host of potential health risks, and exposure is particularly harmful for children. "At high levels of exposure, lead attacks the brain and central nervous system, and can cause convulsions, comas and death," the Metamucil class action lawsuit says. "Moreover, children who survive lead poisoning may be left intellectually disabled or with behavioral disorders." Additionally, lead exposure can cause anemia, hypertension, renal impairment, toxicity to the reproductive organs, type 2 diabetes and cancer, the Metamucil lead class action says. Independent laboratory testing in July 2023 reportedly found high Metamucil lead content, with each serving containing significantly more than the daily limit allowable under California's Proposition 65. Pellegrino points out that California implemented Proposition 65, which sets forth a maximum allowable dose level of 0.5 micrograms per day, to help consumers avoid adverse health effects from consuming lead. Metamucil class action: Products falsely advertised as safe, effective P&G markets its Metamucil products as safe and effective at providing health benefits such as digestive health, appetite control and healthy blood sugar levels, Pellegrino says. However, not only does P&G not disclose the unhealthy Metamucil lead content, but the products also contain added sugar that allegedly damage digestive health, decrease appetite control and harm blood sugar levels. Pellegrino also notes that each Metamucil product includes a "Doctor Recommended" statement that "adds credibility" to the claims that the products are healthy, safe and effective even though they do not provide the promised health benefits and may put consumers' health at risk. Pellegrino seeks to represent a class of New York consumers who purchased one or more Metamucil products in the last three years. The Metamucil class action lawsuit asserts claims for unfair and deceptive business practices and false advertising. A Metamucil class action lawsuit filed last year in California federal court says P&G falsely markets Metamucil products as providing certain health benefits that they do not provide. What do you think about the Metamucil lead content allegations? Join the discussion in the comments! Pellegrino is represented by Jack Fitzgerald of Fitzgerald Joseph LLP. The Metamucil lead class action lawsuit is Regina Pellegrino v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-10631, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] R.H. PETERSON: Faces Mancia Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- ELBA MANCIA, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. R.H. PETERSON CO., a California corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 23STCV29113 (Cal. Super., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to comply with California law concerning payment of lawful wage for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to pay minimum wage; (3) failing to pay all wages owed twice per month; (4) failing to provide timely meal breaks; (5) failing to provide rest breaks; (6) failing to provide proper cool-down rest periods; (7) failing to provide safe working conditions (8) failing to reimburse for required business expenses; and (9) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Plaintiff Mancia worked for the Defendant as an hourly, nonexempt assembly worker from 2017 until June 2023. R.H. Petersen Co. is a manufacturer of premium gas grill, fireplace and outdoor fire feature products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com SAKS FIFTH: Faces Class Action Over Use of Email Tracking Tools --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action claims Saks.com, the e-commerce division of designer clothing retailer Saks Fifth Avenue, secretly embeds tracking technology into marketing emails. The 15-page lawsuit alleges that Saks.com has "knowingly" incorporated into promotional emails tracking tools called "spy pixels," which record data about each email delivery for the benefit of the company's targeted marketing efforts. The suit charges that Saks.com has collected this information without consent from subscribers to its email list, in violation of state law. According to the case, the company utilizes a third-party email tracking system called "richrelevance," along with its own spy pixel, to record subscriber information, including email addresses, email subjects and when and where each email is opened. The spyware also captures email path data and subscribers' IP addresses and device details, the complaint relays. The plaintiff, a Phoenix resident and subscriber to Saks.com's email list, says she has often received and opened marketing emails from the company, and claims that by doing so, her private email records and personal information were collected by the defendant without her knowledge or authorization, in violation of Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act. Per the case, the Arizona law prohibits a company from procuring or attempting to procure the communication service records of email recipients without their authorization. The complaint contends that by "spying on" when subscribers open and read their emails, Saks.com has invaded consumers' privacy rights and intruded upon their seclusion. The lawsuit looks to represent any Arizona residents who have opened a marketing email containing a tracking pixel from Saks.com. [GN] SELFDISRUPT LLC: Harris Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELFDISRUPT LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-021723 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with him between those hours. As such, by and through the electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, says the suit. SelfDisrupt LLC is a Florida limited liability company, with its principal place of business located in Fort Lauderdale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com SIKA AG: M&D Peterson Alleges Supra-Competitive Prices, Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ M&D PETERSON, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04711 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix the prices for: (a) concrete admixtures, (b) cement additives, (c) admixtures for mortar, and (d) products containing or bundled with any of the foregoing (collectively, "CCAs"). According to the complaint, Defendants' unlawful agreement caused direct purchasers of CCAs in the United States and its territories, including Plaintiff and the Class, to pay supra-competitive prices for CCAs sold by Defendants in the United States and its territories from the period beginning no later than May 11, 2018 and running through the date on which any Class herein is certified, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants' scheme included both price increases and the imposition of surcharges on CCAs sold in the United States, says the suit. Further, the Defendants' agreement became increasingly effective as they consolidated their market power, and prices for CCAs continued to rise. The onset of COVID in 2021, however, supercharged Defendants' conspiracy. With no meaningful check on their pricing power, Defendants agreed to institute (a) price increases on the CCAs, and (b) surcharges on top of those price increases, including shipping surcharges and raw material surcharges, the suit asserts. Sika AG is a Swiss multinational specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq. Katie R. Beran, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 Facsimile: (215) 985-3271 E-mail: jkenney@hausfeld.com kberan@hausfeld.com - and - Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, NW Suite 300 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: ngiddings@hausfeld.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 111 W. 2nd Street Suite 1100 Jamestown, NY 14701 Telephone: (716) 664-2967 E-mail: bailey@rupppfalzgraf.com SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 14 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SEDG) between February 22, 2022 and October 19, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased SolarEdge securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the SolarEdge class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21152 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 2, 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 Complaint, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about SolarEdge's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) SolarEdge's Company's distribution channels in Europe had higher than optimal inventory levels; (2) as a result, SolarEdge was experiencing substantial cancellations and pushouts of existing backlog from its European distributors; (3) as a result, SolarEdge's backlog and guidance was overstated; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about SolarEdge's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the SolarEdge class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21152 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. 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] TENDER & TRUE PET: Kouyoumdjian Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Henry Kouyoumdjian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TENDER & TRUE PET NUTRITION, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability corporation, Case No. 23STCV24993 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 1, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10140. The Action purports to allege claims of violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code, false and misleading advertising in violation of Business & Professions Code and violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code (the "Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David A Yudelson, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 909-7775 Facsimile: (424) 465-6630 Email: dyudelson@constangy.com TENET HEALTHCARE: Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, d/b/a METROWEST MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2381-CV-02693 was removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 6, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12978-PBS. The Amended Complaint alleges nine counts: negligence; negligence per se; invasion of privacy; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; breach of fiduciary duty; violation of Massachusetts' Right to Privacy Law; violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act; and violation of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew R. Dennington, Esq. CONN KAVANAUGH ROSENTHAL PEISCH & FORD LLP One Federal Street, 15th Floor Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 482-8300 Email: adennington@connkavanaugh.com TOMOCREDIT INC: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tomocredit, Inc. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tomocredit, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-04561 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. TomoCredit -- https://tomocredit.com/ -- is a fintech company that focuses on helping young adults build and establish good credit scores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED 539 W. Commerce St., Ste. 1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (972) 767-9099 Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com UIPATH INC: Continues to Defend Gera Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- UiPath Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from Gera class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UiPath, Co-CEO Daniel Dines, and CFO Ashim Gupta, captioned Samhita Gera v. UiPath, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:23-cv-07908) (the "Securities Action"). The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and omissions, including regarding UiPath's competitive position and its financial results. The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired UiPath common stock between April 21, 2021 and March 30, 2022. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief as the Court deems appropriate. The proceeding is at a very early stage. UiPath, Inc. is a global provider of robotic process automation software.[BN] UNION BANK AND TRUST: Bender Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paul F. Bender, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Union Bank and Trust Company, Case No. 8:23-cv-00298 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12987-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Union Bank & Trust Company -- http://www.ubt.com/-- is a privately owned, state chartered commercial bank headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP 333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 212-4954 Email: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com - and - Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW FIRM 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (917) 716-7132 Email: elena@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Eric D. Barton, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 701-1100 Email: ebarton@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD, LLP (NA) 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: tbean@sirillp.com UNION INSTITUTE: Richard-Allerdyce Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Diane Richard-Allerdyce, Karen Baird, Katrina Bales, Carol Barrett Sargent, Sarah Bergh, Nancy Boxill, Gregory Luke Chwala, Daniel Diaz, Debby Flickinger, Elden Golden, Daniel G. Ogbaharya, Matthew N. Pappathan, Linwood Rumney, Woden Teachout, Yulia Tolstikov-Mast, Chris Voparil, Charlotte Thornton, Robert Cotter, Tracy Neher, Mary Amos, Jonina Anderson Lopez, Frances Carter, Nicki Black, Brian Dragoo, Ana Ines-Hernandez, Amy Obszarski, Jennifer Raymond, Covia Boyd, Adam Wickert, Kathryn Class and Theresa Warren, and all other similarly situated employees v. UNION INSTITUTE AND UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNION INSTITUTE AND UNIVERSITY, EDGAR L. SMITH, JR., DR. JEFFREY M. SHEPARD, DONALD FELDMAN, ROGER ALLBEE, KAREN BIESTMAN, DR. GLADYS GOSSET HANKINS, DR. EDWIN C. MARSHALL, CHRISTINE VAN DUELMAN, AND DR. KAREN SCHUSTER WEBB, Case No. 1:23-cv-00796-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 5, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA") as result of the Defendant failing to pay Plaintiffs minimum wage for the hours worked. The Defendants have violated the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a, by failing to pay at least the Ohio minimum wage for each year during the relevant time period. The Defendants have breached their contractual obligations to Plaintiffs in violation of Ohio Common Law for unjust enrichment. The Defendants are estopped from denying promises made to Plaintiffs under Ohio Common Law. The Defendants are liable for the tortious interference with Plaintiffs' employment contracts for the misrepresentations made by Defendant Webb on behalf of and in her capacity as President of Defendant Union regarding Plaintiffs' wages and/or benefits. The Defendants are liable for the negligent misrepresentations made by Defendant Webb on behalf of and in her capacity as President of Defendant Union to Plaintiffs regarding their wages and/or benefits. The Defendants are liable for the gross negligent conduct from Defendant Webb's misrepresentations made on behalf of and in her capacity as President of Defendant Union to Plaintiffs regarding their wages and/or benefits. The Defendants were negligent per se by failing to handle Plaintiffs' fringe benefits with the care required under OPPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs all worked for Defendant Union during the 2023 calendar year. Union is a university that employs both hourly, stipend and salaried employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody D. Woods, Esq. Rachel J. Guin, Esq. ROTHBERG LAW FIRM 505 E. Washington Blvd. Fort Wayne, IN 46859 Phone: (260) 422-9454 Fax: (260) 422-1622 Email: cwoods@rothberg.com rguin@rothberg.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: 614-221-4221 Fax: 614-744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.co UNION PACIFIC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jocelyn Schifferdecker, writing for KAKE, reports that Union Pacific is filing to have a class action lawsuit against it dismissed saying it violates both Kansas and federal law. The plaintiff's head attorney says he doesn't think its reasons are strong enough and he believes the community effected needs to be compensated. Environmental lawyer and one of the head attorneys for the plaintiff's Chris Nidel says the property value being damaged from living in a contaminated area is only the tip of the iceberg in ways people living in a northeast Wichita neighborhood have been impacted. "You talk to families with a legacy of cancer and other health effects that is likely the direct result of this irresponsible, negligent, reckless behavior on behalf of Union Pacific," said Chris Nidel, environmental lawyer and one of the head attorneys representing the plaintiffs in this case. In his opinion Union Pacific is hiding behind what he calls formalities in the law to try to get the lawsuit dismissed. "They're not denying that they are the source of this contamination or that it has had an effect on the community at large. But they're simply trying to escape responsibility or shirk responsibility for what it is they've done," he said. In the motion to dismiss, Union Pacific's lawyers say the lawsuit is barred by federal law and violates two Kansas laws, one being the statue of limitations. This meaning the plaintiffs didn't file the lawsuit in a timely manner since the accident. Nidel thinks there are protections in the law for the community affected, and he is ready to fight to prove it. "We believe in our claim. We believe that this community was deceived," he said. The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court says Union Pacific hid the presence of the contaminants and their release decades ago. It spread from the 29th and Grove environmental site to a large portion of a nearby neighborhood causing decades worth of harm. Nidel says Union Pacific didn't let people in the area know about it and those affected didn't know until fall of 2022. This is really about human lives and the effect on real people that have now long suffered as a result of this contamination," he said Nidel explains if any change were to come from the motion to dismiss it would likely be an amendment to the original complaint. He says he wants union pacific to stop hiding and take accountability. "Union Pacific and their conduct from the past is the source for this contamination. This contamination needs to be cleaned up and these people need to be compensated," he said. In a statement Union Pacific tells KAKE News: "We will continue to cooperate with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to investigate and address the spill's effects. KDHE oversees Union Pacific's cleanup efforts at the site under state and federal regulations. Union Pacific remains dedicated to working in collaboration with KDHE, the Sedgwick County Health Department, the City of Wichita and community leaders on the cleanup and remediation of the site." [GN] UNITED STATES: Parks Sues Over Air Marshals' Race Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PARKS, CHAD SUTTON, DR. SUKEENA STEPHENS, and FREEMAN JORDAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03561 (D.D.C., Nov. 29, 2023) arises from the Defendant's ongoing pattern, practice, and culture of race discrimination in denying Plaintiffs and other qualified African American air marshals promotional opportunities, particularly with respect to upper management positions. According to the complaint, Transportation Security Administration's promotional decisions are made by a small group of executive leaders who are almost exclusively white men. Despite paying lip service to wanting diversity in the force, when it comes to upper management positions, TSA cherry picks favorites to be promoted, and relies on arbitrary decision-making to foreclose promotions from African American marshals who are qualified for advancement. Instead of being a meritocracy, TSA top brass is a frat club, where decision-makers choose who they would like to join the club, the suit says. As such, the Defendant has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967 in creating disparate terms and conditions of employment for African Americans, and in denying them equal promotional opportunities as white agents at the TSA, alleges the suit. The Plaintiffs are group of long-tenured African American Transportation Security Administration employees, who are part of the Federal Air Marshals Service. Alejandro Mayorkas is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Pamela Keith, Esq. Scott M. Lempert, Esq. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE, LLC 650 Massachusetts Ave NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 800-0292 E-mail: pamkeith@centerforemploymentjustice.com scottlempert@centerforemploymentjustice.com - and - Jeffrey T. Schrameck, Esq. SCHRAMECK LAW, P.L.L.C 42180 Ford Road Suite 275 Canton, MI 48187 Telephone: (734) 454-5400 E-mail: jeff@schramecklaw.com UNITED STATES: VA Must Face Homeless Disabled Veterans' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Linda F. Hersey, writing for Stars and Stripes, reports that a federal district court judge in California has refused to dismiss a class-action lawsuit demanding the Department of Veterans Affairs provide housing to thousands of disabled veterans living in encampments and on the streets of Los Angeles. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, in a ruling on Dec. 14, described housing needs as urgent, stating the number of homeless veterans has tripled since an earlier lawsuit brought against the VA was settled in 2015 yet failed to yield adequate results. "It is unclear how many veterans have died on the streets of Los Angeles in that time never having received housing or services," Carter wrote in the Powers v. McDonough case, heard in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The judge ordered both sides to "expedite a timeline" and move the lawsuit forward. The case is expected to advance to trial if a settlement is not reached. The next hearing date is scheduled for January 2024. Defendants in the case are VA Secretary Denis McDonough, Steve Braverman, director of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and Keith Harris, senior executive homelessness agent with the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. "This is the greatest legal decision on behalf of veterans," said Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "We are ready to go to trial in June or July [2024] and we are going to win because of the story of these veterans taking on a nation that has not served them. The only remaining questions is whether the administration and Congress will fight the veterans or reach a settlement [finding] that 'unhoused veteran' is an oxymoron in America." Jeffrey Powers, a 60-year-old Navy veteran, is among a dozen plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, along with the National Veterans Foundation. Plaintiffs were identified as homeless veterans in greater Los Angeles diagnosed with serious mental illness, brain injuries and/or physical disabilities. "The judge has been very focused on what is best for the veteran and putting an end to the finger-pointing," Powers said. "He wants to get this problem fixed and made it clear he will not allow [the VA] to do nothing. "I am happy about this ruling for myself and the veterans who will come after me, so that they do not have to go through this," said Powers, who lived in a tiny shed and before that a tent, which he abandoned because of a rat infestation at the encampment. Los Angeles has roughly 4,000 unhoused veterans, according to a 2023 census count of homeless veterans conducted by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. That number represents a 12% rise from the previous year. At issue is the future of a nearly 400-acre gated campus in West Los Angeles held in a charitable trust for housing and supportive services for veterans with disabilities. Veterans have camped on the sidewalk outside the campus, where VA health services are located. The plaintiffs' attorneys argued the land has been inappropriately leased by the VA for business developments unrelated to veterans' health care and housing, breaching the VA's fiduciary duty as trustee. The lawsuit, filed in November 2022, further argued the Greater Los Angeles VA does not offer "anything close to adequate permanent supportive housing" at the campus. Two buildings with veterans housing opened on the campus in the summer, bringing the number of housing developments for veterans to three. A VA spokesman who spoke on condition of anonymity said the developments demonstrate "forward momentum on this critical project." "While there is still much work to do, VA is working aggressively to combat veteran homelessness in the Greater Los Angeles area, providing 1,464 homeless veterans with permanent housing thus far this year, which is the most of any city in America and on pace to exceed VA's calendar year goal for 2023," he wrote in an email. More than $140 million has been invested at the West LA campus by the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in the past three years, according to the VA. But the funding is not enough to meet the housing needs of the city's homeless disabled veterans. At the same time, portions of the campus have been leased by the VA for oil drilling, a private school and university athletic fields. Disabled homeless veterans meanwhile "are unable to meaningfully access" VA health care services located on the campus, according to the complaint. They are effectively denied access to medical, mental health and other services by the health care system because of their situations, attorneys said. The complaint argued Powers and the other plaintiffs do not "want to live in an institution in order to receive services." "The government they served has refused to serve them and, far from welcoming them home, has left them homeless," according to the complaint, which argued the veterans are shut out of services and live on the streets or in conditions outside "the magnificent WLA campus." Numerous studies show homeless individuals with traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia and severe depression need to be stabilized in community housing near services and support, according to the complaint. Veterans "are being unnecessarily institutionalized or placed at serious risk of institutionalization, solely by virtue of their disabilities, which represents unlawful discrimination," according to the complaint. [GN] USAA CASUALTY: MSP Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade County State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series 44, LLC, and others, Plaintiffs v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA General Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22775-RNS (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants the Recovery Companies' motion and remands the case to the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. The Plaintiffs in this case, MSP Recovery Claims, Series 44, LLC; MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; and MSPA Claims I, LLC (collectively the "Recovery Companies"), on their own behalf and on behalf of all others, similarly situated in Florida (collectively the "Class"), are assignees of various health-benefit providers ("Secondary Payors") and claim they may be entitled to reimbursement from the Defendants, USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA General Indemnity Company (together "USAA"). To that end, the Recovery Companies initiated a case in state court, seeking declaratory relief (count one) and a pure bill of discovery (count two) regarding their putative claims. USAA thereafter removed this case, relying on both the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), as well as federal-question jurisdiction. The Recovery Companies now argue that their case should be remanded back to state court because this action does not (1) satisfy the amount-in-controversy threshold or (2) present a federal question. USAA has responded, the Recovery Companies have timely replied. After considering the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Recovery Companies' motion and remands this case back to state court. Various Secondary Payors, including Medicaid Managed Care Organizations and Medicare Advantage Organizations, made payments on behalf of their enrollees (also referred to as "Members") for medical expenses those enrollees incurred as a result of car accidents or other incidents. Some of those Secondary Payors assigned collection rights they might have, by way of those payments, to the Recovery Companies. The Recovery Companies believe they are entitled to reimbursement from USAA for those medical-expense payments, having sent USAA "over 800 reimbursement demands" and having "filed 157 Civil Remedy Notices" in an attempt "to resolve these reimbursement demands," all "to no avail." The Recovery Companies complain that USAA, in rejecting their demands and notices, refuses to coordinate benefits, withholding information about the enrollees' USAA coverage and whether USAA has previously directly reimbursed healthcare providers for the enrollees' medical expenses. The Recovery Companies also submit that USAA improperly insists that the Recovery Companies must comply with various Florida statutory provisions, and jump through other administrative hoops, before USAA would be required to reimburse them. In addition to the past demands, the Recovery Companies describe this as an ongoing bona fide present controversy that they expect will persist and have continued consequences on future claims. In addition to seeking a pure bill of discovery, aimed at obtaining information related to USAA's insureds, the Recovery Companies, on their own behalf and on behalf of the putative Class, also ask the Court to declare the following: a. the USAA Defendants must determine whether their insureds are also Members covered by Secondary Payors, and if so, then, the USAA Defendants must coordinate benefits with Secondary Payors; b. the USAA Defendants must alert Secondary Payors of their primary obligations pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(4) as well as other statutes and regulations; c. Unlike Healthcare Providers lawfully rendering treatment to an injured person for a bodily injury covered by personal injury protection ("PIP") insurance, Secondary Payors are not required to submit a demand for reimbursement on a properly completed 1500 Claim Form, UB 92 Form, or any other standard form under Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(d); and d. Secondary Payors are not required to comply with strict requirements of Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(10), when seeking reimbursement demand and that: i. the USAA Defendants must notify the Secondary Payors of the name of the insured upon which such benefits are primary; ii. Secondary Payors are not required to provide a standard "assignment" typically given to providers by insureds; and iii. the USAA Defendants must notify the Secondar Payors of the claim number or policy number upon which such claim was originally submitted to the USAA Defendants. Although the Recovery Companies initiated this case in state court in 2018, it was not until they filed their second amended complaint, in July 2023, that, according to USAA, their case became removable. As USAA describes it, the "Second Amended Complaint both introduces a federal question and is an 'other paper' for purposes of establishing the amount in controversy." CAFA grants subject-matter jurisdiction to federal district courts "over class actions in which (1) any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from the state of citizenship of any defendant, (2) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and (3) the proposed plaintiff class contains at least 100 members," S. Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 745 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2014). Here, the parties' dispute centers around the second element -- the amount in controversy. The Recovery Companies argue this case should be remanded for two reasons: one, USAA fails to establish that this action meets Section 1332(a)'s $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold; and two, USAA fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction. After review, the Court agrees on both fronts. Judge Scola finds that the aggregate amount in controversy in this case does not exceed $5 million, and that the complaint does not present a federal question. The Court finds that USAA has not shown that the Plaintiffs' claims really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of federal law. For these reasons, the Court grants the Recovery Companies' motion for remand, denies as moot USAA's motion to file a sur-reply, and remands this case to state court. The Court directs the Clerk to close this case and take all necessary steps to ensure the prompt remand of this matter and the transfer of this file back to the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Because the Court cannot consider USAA's motion to dismiss prior to assessing the jurisdictional issues, and because the Court concludes remand is warranted, the motion to dismiss is held over for resolution by the state court. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to terminate the motion to dismiss as no longer pending before this Court and any other pending motions are denied as moot. Finally, the Court denies the Recovery Companies' request for attorney's fees and cost under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). While the issuance of this order, along with others from this district, remanding similar cases, should make it clear to similarly situated defendants, going forward, that comparable actions are not properly removed, those orders were filed after USAA's removal here. Accordingly, the Court declines to conclude that USAA's removal was objectively unreasonable and, therefore, denies the Recovery Companies' motion for fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 27, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3u95rebbfrom PacerMonitor.com. WAITR HOLDINGS: Breach of Contract Suit Remanded to W.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------------ Waitr Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 13, 2023, that on June 29, 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed a District Court's ruling, in part, and then remanded case captioned "Bobby's Country Cookin' LLC, et al v. Waitr Holdings Inc.," to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. In April 2019, the company was named as a defendant in a class action complaint filed by certain current and former restaurant partners, which is currently pending in the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and they seek recovery on behalf of themselves and two separate classes. Based on the current class definitions, as many as 10,000 restaurant partners could be members of the two separate classes at issue. In February 2022, the parties reached a proposed settlement in principle to resolve the litigation in its entirety and requested a stay of the pending litigation. Ultimately, no settlement agreement was executed by the parties nor was District Court approval obtained. Thereafter, the company sought and was granted leave to appeal the denial of its motion for summary judgment to the Fifth Circuit. Waitr Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its wholly owned subsidiaries operates an online ordering technology platform, connecting restaurants, merchants and diners in certain cities in the United States. WAITR HOLDINGS: Faces False Advertising Suit in Minnesota Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Waitr Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 13, 2023, that in November 2022, the company was named as a defendant in "Jenson et al v. Bitesquad.com, LLC," No. 22-cv-03044 (NEB), filed in Minnesota state court. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration on September 13, 2023. The plaintiffs, three customers purporting to represent a class, allege that the company's advertising is false and misleading in that the company's "free delivery" promotions violate the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Practices Act and the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act as a result of the company charging "other fees" on such orders that plaintiffs assert constitute a "delivery charge." The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The company removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the Class Action Fairness Act. Based on the existence of an arbitration provision in the BiteSquad website "terms and conditions" section, the company then moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration on September 13, 2023. A scheduling order has been issued by the court which calls for initial disclosures to be exchanged by November 30, 2023, and an in-person settlement conference on February 20, 2024, and, after a discovery period, a trial-ready date of July 25, 2025. Waitr Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its wholly owned subsidiaries operates an online ordering technology platform, connecting restaurants, merchants and diners in certain cities in the United States. WALMART INC: Defends Class Suit Over Mislabeled Organic Raw Honey ----------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that there are eight reasons to toss this class action lawsuit, Walmart is arguing in response to allegations its organic and raw honey is neither. The company filed a motion to dismiss Dec. 7 in Chicago federal court, claiming plaintiff John Wertymer and his lawyers have not shown a reasonable consumer would be misled by the packaging on the honey. "He contends the honey is not raw because it is heated too much during processing, and the organic product is not organic because Walmart adds foreign sugars," the motion says. "Neither allegation is supported by the complaint (or true), and the laboratory reports Wertymer attaches to his complaint flatly contradict these claims." Walmart argues its Great Value-brand "Raw Honey" and "Organic Raw Honey" satisfy the U.S. Department of Agriculture's definition of "raw honey." It adds the following arguments: -- Wertymer's own lab found no foreign sugars; -- A product's status as organic is not impacted by foreign sugars unless those sugars are prohibited by governing federal regulations; -- Wertymer can't allege the honey he bought is worth less than what he paid for it; -- He alleges no violation of a public policy or conduct so oppressive that consumers couldn't avoid it; -- He can't show Walmart had knowledge any statement was false; -- He does not face threat of future injury; and -- He has not alleged an intention to buy the honey again in the future. According to Wertymer's allegations, Walmart is misleading consumers by labeling its Great Value-brand honey products as "raw" and/or "organic." He claims Walmart adds "foreign sugars" to its "Organic Raw Honey" and "excessively heats" the honey during processing, which causes the enzymes in the raw honey to be destroyed. Specifically, Wertymer alleges Walmart uses Mannose, a mono saccharide not found in honey but regularly found in industrial sugars. He further alleges Walmart had actual knowledge that its Organic Raw Honey and Raw Honey are not raw or organic and do not have the benefits of raw honey. Wertymer is represented by Spencer Sheehan and lawyers from Krislow & Associates in Chicago and Kent Heitzinger & Associates in Winnetka. They quickly submitted a motion for class certification after filing the complaint -- a move that Judge Lindsay Jenkins ruled was premature. [GN] WASHINGTON, DC: Court Stays M.J. Class Suit in Interim ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.J. et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01901 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 14, 2018), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order staying case in the interim. The Court said, "It is further ordered that 30 days after the revised Objections and Responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs M.J. and L.R. are served, Defendants may file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 10 pages, in the event such revised Objections and Responses impact Defendants' arguments in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification." The suit alleges violation of the America with Disabilities Act. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC] WELLTOK INC: Meyer Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE MEYER and TAMARA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLTOK, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12887-ADB (D. Mass., Nov. 29, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated WellTok clients' patients' and/or employees' sensitive information, including their full names, dates of birth, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and medical and treatment information, which is protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. On July 26, 2023, WellTok learned that Pension Benefit Information, LLC's network, to whom PSC provided software services, and for which WellTok relied on for the sending and receiving of sensitive information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. The Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the data breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. WellTok, Inc. is a healthcare services and support company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com WEST VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Hear Report on Correctional System ----------------------------------------------------------- Steven Allen Adams, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reports that despite settling one federal class action lawsuit regarding conditions at a regional jail and an ongoing federal lawsuit over conditions in West Virginia's entire correctional system, state officials told lawmakers on Dec. 12 that things are getting better. Officials with the Department of Homeland Security and the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation gave a report on Dec. 12 to members of the Legislative Oversight Committee on Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority as lawmakers wrapped up the final day of December interim meetings at the Capitol. Mark Sorsaia, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security which oversees DCR, told the committee that despite allegations raised in the two federal class action lawsuits, conditions in the state's system of 11 prisons, 10 regional jails, 10 juvenile centers and three work-release sites were never better. "We've had some public episodes I guess with corrections . . . in the last five months, we've had some problems. We had some bad publicity, some bad lawsuits, some allegations," Sorsaia said. "I can tell you the problems that we had to deal with from a structural argument, the jail wasn't fit and was overcrowded and dirty and people weren't fed and all of that, those problems do not, I believe, exist today." The state is settling a federal class action lawsuit over conditions at the Southern Regional Jail near Beckley after two inmates filed a lawsuit in 2022 alleging inhuman living conditions and overcrowding. The proposed $4 million settlement will be divided between eligible inmates who were incarcerated there between Sept. 22, 2020, and the date of the finalized settlement, approximately 9,200 inmates. Settlement details are still being negotiated and must be approved by the federal judge in the case. The settlement came after U.S. Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn's 39-page order finding in favor of a motion from SJR inmates seeking default judgment against the state. Aboulhosn accused DCR officials of intentionally destroying evidence, including emails and electronically stored documents. The separate ongoing federal lawsuit filed in August against the entire state correctional system in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia accuses the state of understaffing, overcrowding and delays of deferred maintenance for facilities. 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 with available funds or by submitting appropriations bills between now and the next legislative session beginning in January 2024. According to DCR Commissioner William Marshall, the regional jail system is now only 151 beds over capacity across all 10 facilities. While some regional jails are now under total capacity, the North Central Regional Jail in Doddridge County is over capacity by 201 beds. The state's prison system is at appropriate capacity, though total numbers were not provided in the Dec. 12 meeting. "We've done a great job. Quite frankly, I'm kind of amazed how we turned those alleged problems around," Sorsaia said. "I will concede we did have problems . . . I have a comfort level in what we're doing. We've still got a road to go in terms of working on infrastructure, sewage, plumbing, and locks. It's not something you do overnight, but I think we have a good start." Justice and the Legislature included $60 million in the surplus section of the current fiscal year general revenue budget for deferred maintenance projects at the state's jails and prisons. Some of those projects are underway, including repair of 113 prison doors. Correctional officer vacancies are at 883 positions, down from 951 vacancies reported to lawmakers last month and down from a peak of 1,067 vacancies reported nearly one year ago. Since May, six new classes of correctional officers have graduated from the state's correctional academy in Glenville, with 52 cadets of the 77th class scheduled to graduate on Friday, Dec. 22. The next class starts after the beginning of the new year. The number of new correctional officer hires since May including the incoming correctional officer class stands at 280. More than 225 contacts have been made with people interested in correctional careers at job fairs and one-stop events, with 126 jobs offered. Justice signed six corrections bills following a special legislative session in August, including Senate Bill 1005, providing $21.1 million to increase the starting pay and change pay scales for correctional officers; and Senate Bills 1003 and 1004, providing nearly $6 million for one-time bonuses for support staff in the correctional system beginning in October. The state remains under its second state of emergency for corrections system vacancies, with the West Virginia National Guard remaining in state facilities to assist with shortages. [GN] WOODSIDE ENERGY: Greenpeace Files Emissions Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that in a class action filed in the Federal Court, Greenpeace alleged the fossil fuel giant engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive when it made statements about its greenhouse gas emissions. In one example, Greenhouse alleged Woodside's emissions went up by 3 per cent despite it representing it had cut climate pollution from extracting and processing its gas and oil by 11 per cent in 2022. Greenpeace also alleged that despite a plan to be "net zero" by 2050, Woodside did not mention that this did not apply to the 90 per cent of pollution produced when oil and gas get burnt. General counsel Katrina Bullock said statements made by Woodside were designed to make investors, governments and the public think it was reducing emissions, "when in truth, the company's emissions are increasing". "It is clearly in the public interest to ensure big polluters such as Woodside are held to account for their allegedly misleading or deceptive conduct," Ms Bullock said. If successful, Greenpeace predicts the case could improve disclosure transparency and could force other fossil fuel companies to be upfront about the scope and impact of their business plans. Greenpeace chief executive David Ritter said Woodside is "treating the Australian public and its shareholders like mugs". "Greenpeace won't stand idly by as Australia's biggest climate threat -- a company that is profiteering from climate devastation -- buries the truth about its impact in the fine print," Mr Ritter said. [GN] [*] Class Suit Filed in Quebec Over Salmonella in Cantaloupes ------------------------------------------------------------- Slater Vecchio LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of persons in Quebec who purchased, or consumed and got sick, cantaloupes that are subject to the recent Health Canada recalls. On November 1, 2023, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in collaboration with Health Canada, issued a recall for Malichita-branded cantaloupes due to traces of Salmonella discovered during testing. Subsequently, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency expanded the recall to include Rudy-branded, pre-cut cantaloupes and other fruit sold across Canada. As per the latest Health Canada Report, the cantaloupe outbreak has resulted in a minimum of 129 reported cases of Salmonella, with Quebec alone accounting for 91 cases. This outbreak has led to 44 hospitalizations and five tragic deaths. In a recent CBC Report, it's suggested that the actual number of affected individuals could be substantially greater, implying an imminent threat that might affect thousands of people. The diagnosed cases might only represent a fraction of the true scale of the issue. Saro Turner, a partner at Slater Vecchio, stated, "The aim of this class action is to provide access to justice for those who fell ill or suffered financial losses due to consuming or purchasing these hazardous products without value." If you purchased these cantaloupes or related fruit product that were recalled but haven't consumed them, do not eat them and keep proof of purchase, including a receipt or a time-stamped photo, if available. While healthy individuals may experience short-term symptoms, young children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems face a higher risk of severe and potentially fatal reactions. If you suspect that eating a recalled cantaloupe has resulted in illness, then seek medical attention as appropriate. Slater Vecchio LLP is seeking to identify with individuals who purchased a recalled cantaloupe or related fruit product sold between October 10, 2023, and November 24, 2023. Please submit your information on our website at https://www.slatervecchio.com/class-action/cantaloupes-salmonella-recall/ [GN] [*] Data Breach Class Actions Up in 2023, Study Shows ----------------------------------------------------- Epiq reports that there has been a spike in data breach class actions this year. According to a study by Law.com Radar, the monthly average of data breach class actions was 44.5 from January through August. This figure is more than double of last year's 20.6 monthly average. Data breaches have also been on an uptick. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, there was an increase of 114 percent in reported data compromises from 2023 Q1 to Q2 reflecting the highest number of breaches ever during a quarter. These incidents are getting more costly each year. IBM reported in the 2023 Cost of a Data Breach report that the global average breach cost was $4.45 million, representing a 15 percent increase over three years. But what do all these statistics mean and how should business leaders react? First, it is time to come to terms with the reality that any organization is fair game for an attack. They must pay attention to the data breach class action landscape. Next, instead of viewing these trends in isolation, it is time to unite them and look at the whole picture. Where significant data breaches occur, class action exposure increases exponentially. Lastly, organizations need to formulate a breach response plan that is proactive, accounts for risk mitigation, and factors in potential class action liability. Current Conditions There are several factors contributing to the rise in data breaches. The obvious reason is that as the world continues to digitize more, there is more information out there to access. Bad actors are developing more sophisticated and strategic ways to target sensitive information, while organizations are simultaneously producing and storing a record amount of data. They are also figuring out how to use advanced technologies as a tool to intercept information. For example, ransomware attacks have been trending in recent years with demands previously in the thousands now in the millions. Even if an organization saves money by paying the ransom, this is contributing to the bigger problem. Bad actors will keep perpetuating these attacks because they have gotten away with it in the past, while continuing to sophisticate their efforts. Other trending attack methods include phishing, multifactor authentication breaches, and malware. Large-scale hacks have also contributed to the drastic uptick in breaches. The MOVEit hack resulting from a software vulnerability that began in May 2023 (and is still ongoing) is one of several recent events illustrating how widespread attacks can quickly place a large number of organizations at risk. Many MOVEit incidents involve over one million impacted contacts and the types of data impacted tend to be rich files with complete contact data, such as complete client or employee lists containing full PII sets. Events like this have the potential to create large class action lawsuits against the software creator and its customers. Affected individuals have already started filing lawsuits against organizations using MOVEit, thus highlighting the importance of not only having sound internal practices but also keeping apprised of third-party systems storing any business data. The above coupled with more court education, regulatory rules, cyber insurance mandates, and media reporting on data breaches highlights how front and center this topic is currently. This has directly caused more class action activity that is costlier. Settlements are higher due to the number of affected consumers and public attention on breaches of all sizes. More class actions are being filed and courts are allowing certification. The Law.com Radar study found that from this January through June there were 246 data breach class actions, which is close to 2022's grand total. Courts are even requiring defendants to turn over privileged investigative breach reports. These circumstances place urgency on breached organizations to mitigate quickly and explain security gaps to save their reputation. To lessen risk, it is crucial to not only anticipate data breaches – but also the class actions that can follow. Adapting and Acting It is time to act. Having controls in place to mitigate breach risk is no longer an option. Organizations must review their security gaps regularly and make this an ongoing top initiative. Not putting enough prevention in place to avoid a breach or failing to quickly determine a breach cause and remediate it effectively are both contributing factors to the uptick in class actions. However, more are looking to invest in cyber preparedness as demonstrated in the IBM report where 51 percent of organizations said they plan to increase cybersecurity spending because of an internal breach. But where to start? Keeping on top of the changing landscape will help improve policies and procedures related to managing threats and risks, but this is only the beginning of what needs to be done to have a robust and effective cyber readiness plan that also anticipates class action activity. What needs to be done will be unique to every organization. The goal should be to determine the best combination of security controls that fall within an organization's risk tolerance. From training to threat detection software, mock breach exercises, and beyond -- the possibilities are plentiful and flexible. This is not a feat to tackle alone, so fear not. An outside consultant with not only cybersecurity capabilities, but also class action, is ideal. Look for an expert partner that can pinpoint cyber gaps and fix them by integrating new tools or information governance approaches; advise on what to include in an organization's incident prevention and response programs; keep apprised on breach and class action trends; provide breach response services; and have staff available to handle class action administration in the event that one materializes after a breach. By tapping into outside resources in addition to internal efforts, an organization will be in the best position to tackle data breaches that come their way -- and any class actions that may follow. This will also reduce breach and class action risk in the first place, providing peace of mind and allowing organizations to maintain good cyber hygiene. [GN] [*] Firefighter Seeks Review of Ohio Class Vacatur in PFAS Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin reports that a former firefighter has asked the full 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to review a panel's vacatur of an order certifying a class of Ohio residents who allege injuries caused by various companies' PFAS-containing products. In a Dec. 11 brief, Kevin Hardwick argues that the appellate panel contradicted "well-established precedent that initial pleadings need not identify every defendant with certainty to establish traceability, and may treat them as a collective under Article III." Hardwick adds that, at minimum, the appellate court should allow the trial court to consider whether he may amend his complaint. [GN] [*] Village of Belgium Opts Out of PFAs Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Ozaukee Press reports that it's not a "Seinfeld" episode, but this class-action lawsuit settlement as it pertains to the Village of Belgium is a case about nothing. The Village Board on Dec. 11 unanimously agreed not to opt out of a per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS, known as forever chemicals) settlement but agreed not to fill out any of the necessary paperwork to get a piece of the settlement since the village's water doesn't have any of those chemicals. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 1,060 PI Lawsuits as of Oct. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- GMS Inc., from time to time, is involved in lawsuits that are brought against them in the normal course of business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Since 2002 and as of October 31, 2023, approximately 1,060 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed, and we vigorously defend against them. Of these, 1,009 have been dismissed without any payment by us, 37 are pending and only 14 have been settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition or operating results. "The building materials industry has been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products, as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims if the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or to have violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have included and may in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. Certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at http://surl.li/okzdd ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Pushing to Settle Asbestos Related Talc Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ Travis Rodgers, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that Johnson & Johnson is trying to resolve some of the thousands of lawsuits filed claiming its talc-based baby powder causes cancer. J&J's in-house lawyer overseeing the talc litigation Eric Haas, said during an investor call that the recent settlements covered cases involving plaintiffs with mesothelioma. In hopes of eventually reaching a global settlement, the company announced that three law firms settled around 100 cases in the first week of December 2023. Haas didn't reveal any further details about the dollar amounts of the settlements, the identity of the law firms involved, or exactly how many people the deal affects. "We have made recent progress over the last few weeks" Haas told investors when speaking about resolving groups of legal cases from plaintiffs alleging they developed mesothelioma from asbestos-contaminated baby powder. He also said the company has resolved all but one of the cases scheduled for trial in 2023. "Our intention with talc is to bring resolution to these cases," J&J Chief Executive Officer Joaquin Duato told investors. Duato noted settling the cases would allow the company to "spend our days" on treatment advancement. Johnson & Johnson is facing more than 50,000 talc lawsuits in connection to claims that its baby powder is tainted with asbestos and can cause cancer. Most of the plaintiffs are women with ovarian cancer. J&J argues its products aren't asbestos-contaminated and are safe. The company is considering a third attempt at filing for bankruptcy after courts rejected the move twice. J&J tried two Chapter 11 filings through its subsidiary LTL Management. A judge dismissed both attempts, saying the company didn't qualify for bankruptcy protection since it was not in financial distress. For its third attempt J&J may attempt to move its legal liabilities to Texas. According to the Wall Street Journal, the move would need to involve one of Johnson & Johnson's existing businesses already in Texas in order to establish a venue. The strategy is known as the "Texas Two-Step." ********* 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 ***