/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 26, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 258 Headlines 3M CO: Hardwick Files Bids for Revival of Massive PFAS Class Suit 3M CO: Pender County, NC Joins Water Contamination Class Suit ACRISURE LLC: Dias Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info ALABAMA: Faces Class Suit Over Forced Prison Labor Scheme AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 16, 2024 AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert. Extended to April 29, 2024 ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Denies Class Suit Over Kabwe Pollution ANTHEM COMPANIES: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response in Midkif ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Coggins Class Action Letter Tossed w/o Prejudice APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Trust Violations APPLE INC: Settles Class Suit Over Family Sharing Feature for $25M AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alvarez Alleges AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Walles Suit Alleges BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Class Certification Bid Partly Granted BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid in Aseltine Due August 23, 2024 BON SECOURS: Durbin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Police Officers BOULDER BJ: Knerr Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification CANO HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Disclosures CANOO INC: Third Amended Complaint Reply Due Feb. 8, 2024 CITADEL SERVICING: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 8, 2024 CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Riverdale Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appeal Div. CONSUMER FINANCIAL: Jones Suit Seeks Class Certification COOK COUNTY, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach COREPOWER YOGA: Bid to Dismiss Suit Continued to Jan. 19, 2024 CORTEVA INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Cockerill Class Lawsuit COVIA HOLDINGS: $6MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 11 CREDIT UNION: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid to Leave to Amend Claims CROWN EQUIPMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges CSX TRANSPORTATION: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Francisco Alleges CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Crowl Suit Consolidated with Wise CVS HEALTH: Filling for Class Cert Bid Due March 7, 2025 CYBELANGEL USA: Unopposed Bid for Extension of Time OK'd in Koeller D & M BOLANOS: Gomez Seeks Court-Approved Notice to Employees DBI SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024 DENTSPLY SIRONA: Parties Seek More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid DENTSPLY SIRONA: Parties Seek to Extend May 31, 2023 Sched Order DOTERRA INT'L: Bingham Seeks Conditional Class Certification DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid EBERJEY HOLDINGS: Bilbao Suit Removed to S.D. Florida EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES: Lomeli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ENVISION HEALTHCARE: $$177.5MM Settlement to be Heard on March 21 EXP WORLD HOLDINGS: Faces Phillips Class Suit in Georgia EXPENSIFY INC: Faces Wilhite Suit Over 36.89% Stock Price Drop FARADAY FUTURE: Faces Consolidated Class Action FARADAY FUTURE: Settles Securities Class Action FLIPPS MEDIA: Discloses Video Habits to Facebook, Sancruzado Says FRESH DINING: Faces Carter Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. GEORGE ARCHOS: Flood Enterprises Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. GOOGLE LLC: Helena World Sues Over Digital News Monopoly GROUP HEALTH: Plavin Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Violates PUMP Act, Vera Class Suit Says INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit JB HI-FI: Faces Class Suit Over "Junk" Warranties JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Sues Over Antibody Drug Monopoly KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Effects of Abortion Ban KIPLING APPAREL: Faces Calcagno Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme LAFARGE CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Carcinogenic Cement Dust LENOIR-RHYNE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Espinal Says MEDICAL EYE: Fails to Safeguard Users' Personal Info, Sheets Says MERCK & CO: Appeals Ruling in Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Suit MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Babcock Appeals Claims Dismissal to 9th Circuit NATIONAL RIFLE: Crawford Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. NEW YORK, NY: Caldwell Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Fire Inspectors NEW YORK: Bianculli Files Appeal in N.Y. Appellate Division NEWKIRK LOGISTICS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Dishmon Suit Says OPTIMA FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abreu Alleges ORAL ESSENTIALS: Faces Shafee Suit Over Whitening Strips' False Ads OREGON: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Children in Foster Care PAPA JOHN'S: Jones Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit POMPEI PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Echevarria Alleges PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Feagins Claims PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Shahbazian Says RAMON LOPEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguirre Suit Alleges RECKITT BENCKISER: Taylor Sues Over Honey Products' False Ads REPUBLICAN NATIONAL: Howard Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. SENIOR SOLUTIONS: Franks Suit Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime SIKA AG: 570 Concrete Sues Over Concrete Mixtures Monopoly SILVER CINEMAS: Osheske Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. STABLE ROAD: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 22 UNION PACIFIC: Files Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Contamination UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal AI Programs UP FAITH: Tejon Sues Over Unwanted Disclosure of Users' Video Info ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach ********* 3M CO: Hardwick Files Bids for Revival of Massive PFAS Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Mindock of Reuters reports that an Ohio resident has told a U.S. appeals court its recent ruling putting an end to a massive class action lawsuit that accused 3M (MMM.N), Corteva Inc (CTVA.N) subsidiary E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co and other companies of putting people's health at risk by exposing them to toxic "forever chemicals" could send a dangerous message to chemical manufacturers facing similar claims, and deserves a second look. Kevin Hardwick, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, on December 11, 2023 asked the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a November decision that dismantled the class action that would have allowed roughly all of Ohio's 11.8 million residents to sue the companies as a group. Hardwick said the decision would allow companies to escape potential liability for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, pollution at early stages of litigation if numerous defendants produced the mostly identical chemicals allegedly causing harm. He said the 6th Circuit's ruling incorrectly concluded he did not sufficiently trace his harms to the companies and the chemicals they produced, and said he provided enough evidence for the case to proceed. "If the decision stands, the lesson is that companies should conspire together to poison people with the same poison and none of them can be held responsible," Hardwick said. PFAS are a family of thousands of chemicals that have been used in a wide range of products including non-stick pans and clothing, and have been tied to cancer and other diseases. A 3M spokesperson said the company disagrees with Hardwick's arguments. A Corteva representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment on December 12, 2023. A three-judge panel had found Hardwick filed too broad a complaint against the manufacturers, and had not shown that the PFAS found in his body could be traced directly to the defendants, noting there are potentially thousands of companies that have manufactured PFAS. But Hardwick said that was not true, since there are just 10 companies that actually manufactured the specific PFAS at issue in the case. While many other companies may have sold products with the chemicals, each of the 10 defendants is ultimately responsible for contaminating Ohio residents' blood with those PFAS, Hardwick said. PFAS are often referred to as forever chemicals because they do not easily break down once released into the environment or absorbed into the human body. The lawsuit seeks to establish a fund to monitor Ohio residents for health impacts from PFAS exposure, and other relief. It is among thousands that have been filed against 3M, DuPont and others in recent years over alleged PFAS contamination. 3M agreed in June to pay $10.3 billion to settle hundreds of claims the company polluted public drinking water with the chemicals, while Chemours Co (CC.N) DuPont de Nemours (DD.N) and Corteva reached a similar deal with U.S. water providers for $1.19 billion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has called PFAS an "urgent public health and environmental issue," and has taken steps to regulate PFAS, including in drinking water. The case is Hardwick v. 3M Co, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-3765. For Hardwick: Robert Bilott, Aaron Herzig and William Braff of Taft Stettinius & Hollister For the chemical companies: Theodore Grossman, Louis Chaiten and James Saywell of Jones Day [GN] 3M CO: Pender County, NC Joins Water Contamination Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Daily News Staff of The Daily News reports that Pender County recently entered a landmark class action suit against 3M Company. 3M Company agreed to pay a settlement of up to $10.3 billion to resolve lawsuits over the contamination of drinking water systems. If approved, the settlement funds will be paid out over 13 years to public water providers across the country. In a similar case, the county has joined a settlement where U.S. chemical titans Chemours, Corteva and DuPont will pay an estimated $1.19 billion. The manufacturers settled both cases after allegations that they polluted drinking water with per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as "forever chemicals." The settlement will help remove PFAS from public drinking water systems. Both cases are scheduled for upcoming final fairness hearings in South Carolina. For many years, PFAS have been used in packaging, non-stick cookware, firefighting foam and other common applications. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) website, studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS in the environment may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals. The E.P.A. has proposed a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4.0 parts per trillion for PFAS and Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking water. They announced that the government would, for the first time, propose a regulation requiring near-zero levels of PFAS in drinking water after determining nearly no amount is safe. Pender County was one of the first surface water treatment plants in southeastern North Carolina to implement Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) in 2012. The system was designed to remove organics from the water for the reduction of disinfection by-products in the finished water. Coincidently, GAC is also an effective treatment for removing PFAS. The GAC system has shown great success in removing PFAS. However, with the expansion of capacity comes the need for Pender County Utilities (PCU) to make improvements. These settlements could be used to improve the GAC system at the surface water treatment plant without increasing utility costs. The funds in the class settlement are intended to address the additional costs of treatment of water containing PFAS by water systems not by individuals. Any person who feels they may have been injured or incurred damages because of PFAS should consult with an attorney as the funds the county will receive do not cover any individual damages. If you have a private well, you may be eligible for free testing. Check out the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality for more information. [GN] ACRISURE LLC: Dias Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS DIAS JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACRISURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01288-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich., December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its networks following a data breach that believed to occur from December 1, 2022 to January 28, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, the suit alleges. Acrisure, LLC is an insurance company with its principal place of business located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Suciu, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com ALABAMA: Faces Class Suit Over Forced Prison Labor Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Gregg of The Washington Post reports that ten current and former Alabama prisoners say they were forced to participate in work programs that raised money for the state while providing cheap labor to public- and private-sector employers, including franchisees of Burger King, McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken, according to a lawsuit filed on December 12, 2023. A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama describes a system in which prisoners who refuse to work are threatened with disciplinary action, such as solitary confinement or citations that could interfere with their parole. The plaintiffs, who also include several labor unions and the criminal justice nonprofit Woods Foundation, say the system amounts to a "modern-day form of slavery" comparable to convict-leasing programs that existed after the Civil War. They accused more than two dozen defendants -- including state officials, government agencies and private employers -- of violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, among other charges. The plaintiffs "have been entrapped in a system of 'convict leasing' in which they are forced to work, often for little or no money, for the benefit of the numerous government entities and private businesses that 'employ' them," the complaint alleges. The complaint was filed as a class-action lawsuit, meaning the court will have to certify the plaintiffs as a class before the case can proceed. The office of Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R), the state's Department of Corrections, Burger King, McDonald's and KFC parent company Yum Brands did not immediately respond to requests for comment on December 12, 2023. The catch with 'work release' One of the plaintiffs is Robert Earl Council, also known by the moniker Kinetik Justice, a prisoner who co-founded the Free Alabama Movement, a labor group for incarcerated workers that has sought to use work stoppages inside Alabama prisons to "combat the multibillion dollar Prison Industrialized Complex," according to the group's website. Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, said the plaintiffs are prepared to take on the state for what they view as a clear violation of human rights. Appelbaum and his union were part of an effort to organize Amazon workers in Alabama, which sputtered in 2021 after losing a crucial vote. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post. The Post's interim CEO, Patty Stonesifer, sits on Amazon's board.) "When people's labor is owned by others rather than the workers themselves, they're unable to obtain the rights that they deserve," Appelbaum said in an interview. So-called work release programs, common across the country, let prisoners who have shown good behavior or are otherwise trusted leave confinement to work for specific shifts. But states can take a hefty share of the wages. After fees and taxes are deducted, the workers' net wages can be as low as $2 per hour, according to plaintiffs. In Alabama, the state typically takes 40 percent, while other fees can be applied for things like transportation. According to the class action complaint, some 575 private employers have "leased" incarcerated labor through this system since 2018, which plaintiffs say is enough to generate more than $450 million annually. The private companies named as defendants include food-and-beverage distributors, manufacturers, fast-food franchisees and a laundry-cleaning service. Prisoners working at fast-food restaurants work run-of-the-mill jobs such as fry cooks or others, while those in manufacturing firms sometimes carry out skilled duties such as metal fabrication, welding and precision die casting, according to the class action complaint. Government agencies benefit from their work, as well. The city of Montgomery, named as a defendant, procured at least 343 incarcerated laborers to work in various capacities over the first eight months of 2023, according to the complaint. Plaintiff Lakiera Walker said in an interview that she entered the prison system at 19 when she was 6½ months pregnant. She was incarcerated on assault charges but later received parole after the plaintiffs in her case testified on her behalf, according to Walker and an attorney representing her. During most of her incarceration, which lasted from 2007 until 2023, Walker says she was made to understand that she had to work or face punishment. Refusing to work would have given her a "disciplinary," she said, which would go on her record and affect her chances of parole. She also worried that refusing to work could lead the prison to withhold the regular "family day" that allowed her to see her son for an extended period. She described a "job board" at the prison where work would be assigned. "There is no way around going to the job board," she said. "If you don't go [to work], you'll go into solitary." So she worked long hours, typically seven days a week, she says. Her jobs inside the prison included uncompensated work stripping floors, helping in the prison's hospice unit and unloading chemical trucks, according to the complaint. A work release program landed her with a job in industrial freezers and later at Burger King, where she served burgers alongside teenagers and other free "civilians." To take a sick day, "you had to go through the officers, and it was like you're taking money out of their wallet if you didn't go to work that day," Walker said in an interview. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 16, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered a Rule 16(b) scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows: Deadline to complete discovery on class August 17, 2024 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery) Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for September 16, 2024 class certification (noted on the reply deadline) Opposition to class certification motion December 16, 2024 Reply in further support of class March 27, 2025 certification motion 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 Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t8PM8f at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert. Extended to April 29, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting stipulation to continue class certification motion deadlines as follows: 1. The last day to file Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be continued from February 27, 2024 to April 29, 2024. 2. The last day to file Defendants’ opposition to motion for class certification shall be continued from March 12, 2024 to May 28, 2024. 3. The last day to file Plaintiff’s reply brief in support of motion for class certification shall be continued from March 19, 2024 to June 10, 2024. 4. The class certification hearing shall be continued from April 9, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. to June 25, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. 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 Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46XZlEK at no extra charge.[CC] ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Denies Class Suit Over Kabwe Pollution ------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia Kumwenda-Mtambo and Felix Njini of Mining.com report that South Africa's High Court has ruled that a class action lawsuit against miner Anglo American brought by victims of alleged historic lead poisoning in Zambia should not go ahead, lawyers for the claimants said on December 16, 2023. Victims of the alleged poisoning had accused Anglo's South African unit of negligence in controlling emissions of lead into the local environment at a mine it part-owned 50 years ago in Zambia's Kabwe district. Sign Up for the Africa, Europe & Middle East Digest Anglo has previously denied the allegations and vowed to defend itself. "We have stated from the outset that this claim is entirely misconceived and it is clear that the court recognized its multiple legal and factual flaws, deeming it not in the interest of justice for the class action to proceed," an Anglo American spokesperson said. Anglo partly owned the Kabwe lead mine some 50 years ago. The mine was later owned by Zambian state-owned firm ZCCM-IH until 1994 when it was closed. In a statement, lawyers for the claimants said the Johannesburg High Court had ruled in a 126-page judgment delivered on December 15, 2023 evening that a claim against Anglo American South Africa (AASA) over widespread lead poisoning across Kabwe, Zambia, could not proceed as a class action. The victims will appeal the ruling, the lawyers said. 'Unmanageable class action' Among the concluding arguments in the ruling, the court said the application was seeking permission to advance an untenable claim that would set a grave precedent. "The precedent is that a business could be held liable half a century after its activities have ceased, to generations not yet born, as a result of being tested against future knowledge and standards unknown at the time," the ruling said. The court also said the class action would be "unmanageable" in that it would take a long time to be completed, after the applicants estimated it would take ten years for their legal team to take instructions from every member of the proposed classes. "If this is so, it would take much longer for a South African court to assess the claim of each class member in the second stage." "It bears emphasis that an unmanageable class action is not only adverse to Anglo's interests: It undermines the applicants' access to justice," the court said. "Under the circumstances it is proper and necessary to dismiss the certification application." South African law firm Mbuyisa Moleele and UK-based Leigh Day, acting on behalf of about 140,000 women and children of Kabwe, want Anglo held liable for failing to curb lead emissions from a smelter and waste dumps. They also allege that Anglo was aware, before 1974, of the environmental damage and lead poisoning, including deaths of local children, and had ignored expert advice to remedy the situation before it handed over the assets to ZCCM-IH. [GN] ANTHEM COMPANIES: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response in Midkif ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINIFRED MIDKIFF, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINIA, INC. d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, and AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-00417-HEH (E.D. Va.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time for the parties to respond to certification and summary judgment briefing. -- Deadlines to respond from December 14, 2023 to January 10, 2024 -- The parties' reply deadlines from December 20, 2023 to January 24, 2024 Anthem is an American health insurance company A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46SoctK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christine M. Costantino, Esq. Brett C. Bartlett, Esq. Kevin M. Young, Esq. Lennon B. Haas, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 975 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 463-2400 Facsimile: (202) 828-5393 E-mail: CCostantino@seyfarth.com bbartlett@seyfarth.com KYoung@seyfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Coggins Class Action Letter Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDE G. COGGINS, et al., v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, et al., Case No. 9:23-cv-01153-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order denying without prejudice the Coggins Class Action Letter insofar as it seeks certification of a proposed class. The Court further ordered that: -- the Coggins Withdrawal Request is denied without prejudice; -- it will hold the Leao IFP Application, Azaz IFP Application, and Powell IFP Application in abeyance for 30 days to afford all of the plaintiffs an opportunity to either sign the Coggins Withdrawal Request or submit a similar request on their own Behalf; -- Each plaintiff's filing in accordance with this Decision and Order, or at the expiration of the time set to comply, whichever is earlier, the Clerk shall return this file to the Court for further review; and -- all pleadings, motions and other documents relating to this action must bear the case number assigned to this action and be filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, 100 S. Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nok8dD at no extra charge. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[CC] APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Trust Violations ------------------------------------------------------ FineExtra reports that the anti-trust lawsuit, first reported on by Reuters and filed by US beverage business Mirage Wine & Spirits, alleges that Apple reached agreements with Visa and then with Mastercard not to use the iPhone to establish its own independent POS network. In return, the two schemes agreed to pay the computer giant a portion of transaction fees for Apple Pay payments running over their respective networks. The lawsuit alleges that this arrangement constitutes a "very large and ongoing cash bribe," removing any reason for Apple to build its own payment network in competition with Visa and Mastercard. The suit further alleges that the three companies acted to deflect competition by blocking third parties from accessing the iPhone's 'Secure Element', which could have been used to buiild mobile payment networks that bypassed Visa and Mastercard routing. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Apple has offered to open up the Apple Pay NFC system to third parties, in an effort to stave off an ongoing antitrust investigation in the European Union. [GN] APPLE INC: Settles Class Suit Over Family Sharing Feature for $25M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Friedman of Phone Arena reports that per USA Today, Apple might owe you some money after settling a class-action lawsuit over the Family Sharing feature. The suit, known as Walter Peters v. Apple, was settled by Apple for $25 million which means that Apple might owe you as much as (are you sitting down?) a whopping $30! Family Sharing is an App Store feature that allows purchased apps to be shared with up to six family members. The "initiating user" lists the five additional family members in the initiator's Apple Account. Apple forced app developers to include ads for Family Sharing on their apps' landing pages If the family members consent to be included in the Family Sharing program, when any family member purchases an app that supports Family Sharing from the App Store, the app is downloaded on the devices of the other family members even though only one payment is necessary to purchase the app for all six family members. The complaint noted that "Apple places and/or demands that its software developers place a small advertisement on the landing pages for its apps which states that the app supports Family Sharing." Up until January 30, 2019, Apple included an advertisement on each app's landing page that said, "Supports Family Sharing. With Family Sharing set up, up to six family members can use this app." Apple included this statement on the landing pages of apps that did not support the feature. The complaint alleges that even though Apple knew that the vast majority of the apps in the App Store did not support Family Sharing, the landing page for most subscription-based apps included the ad. Obviously, as the complaint points out in black and white, "This advertisement is materially misleading, in that it plainly states that the App is available for Family Sharing, when it is not." As you might have expected, millions of App Store visitors purchased apps that they thought would be automatically shared with the five family members they previously designated. These Apple device owners were upset to find out that a particular app they paid for, which featured the Family Sharing ad on its landing page, did not actually support the feature. The crux of the complaint against Apple reads like this: "As a result of Apple's deceptive and misleading practices, Plaintiffs and the Class Members were induced to purchase subscription-based Apps for which Apple receives hefty fees, believing that those Apps could be shared with up to six family members -- when in fact they were available only to the single user who set up the subscription." The complaint adds that "Apple has made millions of dollars in fraudulent sales to individuals who Apple told were receiving up to six copies of an App when they were receiving only one. Apple's customers did not receive the benefit of their bargain. They were misled. In the document containing the settlement, "Apple denies that it made any misleading misrepresentations with respect to the sharing of third-party subscriptions using Family Sharing or that the Named Plaintiffs or Class have suffered any injury or damages or are entitled to any restitution." So then, why not let the whole thing play out in court? Apple explains that "taking into account the uncertainty and risks inherent in litigating this case, Apple has concluded that continuing to defend this Action would be burdensome and expensive. Apple enters into this Agreement without in any way acknowledging any fault, liability, or wrongdoing of any kind." If you haven't been notified but believe you are eligible for your share of the settlement, here is how you file a claim If you signed up for Family Sharing between June 21st, 2015, and January 30th, 2019 with at least one other person and purchased a third-party app, you are eligible to make a claim. And those who are eligible will receive an email with details about the settlement. But if you don't receive any notification and believe that you are eligible to make a claim, you can register by heading to the settlement website by tapping this link. The deadline to opt into the settlement is March 1st, 2024. Depending on the number of legitimate claims received, each participant agreeing to the settlement could find themselves as much as $30 richer. The final approval hearing will take place on April 2nd, 2024. Members of the class can decide in advance whether to have their percentage of the settlement sent to them via electronic bank transfer or by check. [GN] AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alvarez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02766 (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 11, 2023) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former employees, employment applicants, and current and former customers. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant disclosed the PII of Plaintiff and Class members for criminals to use in the conduct of criminal activity. Specifically, the Defendant opened up, disclosed, and exposed the PII of Plaintiff and Class members to people engaged in disruptive and unlawful business practices and tactics, including online account hacking, unauthorized use of financial accounts, and fraudulent attempts to open unauthorized financial accounts (i.e., identity fraud), all using the stolen PII. The Defendant's failure to promptly and properly notify Plaintiff and Class members of the Data Breach exacerbated Plaintiff and Class members' injury by depriving them of the earliest ability to take appropriate measures to protect their PII and take other necessary steps to mitigate the harm caused by the Data Breach, the suit alleges. AUTOZONE, INC. is a retailer of automotive replacement parts and accessories. The Company offers an extensive product line for cars, sport utility vehicles, vans, and light trucks, including new and remanufactured automotive hard parts, maintenance items, accessories, and non-automotive products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com brittanyr@turkestrauss.com AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Walles Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN WALLES and JOSE VARGAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-12889-ADB (D. Mass., Nov. 29, 2023) sues the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated AutoZone employees' sensitive information, including their full names and Social Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). On an undisclosed date, AutoZone learned that Pension Benefit Information, LLC's network, to whom PSC provided software services, and for which AutoZone relied on for the sending and receiving of sensitive information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. As a result of the investigation, AutoZone concluded -- on August 15, 2023 -- that "the exploitation of the vulnerability in the MOVEit application had resulted in the exfiltration of certain data. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of the Defendants' conduct. These injuries include: invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; and experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to warn the Plaintiffs and Class Members of Defendants' inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. AutoZone is a retailer and distributor of automotive replacement parts and accessories in the U.S.[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 BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Class Certification Bid Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES and TYCHICUS STANSLAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order: (1) granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for partial summary judgment; and (2) granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for class Certification. Specifically, the Court grants class certification as to the following subclasses: 1. Minimum Wage Security Subclass; 2. Overtime Security Subclass; 3. Rounding Minimum Wage Subclass; 4. Rounding Overtime Subclass; 5. Overtime Regular Rate of Pay Subclass; 6. Meal Break Subclass (to the extent it is based upon whether Defendant provided late first meal breaks); 7. Second Meal Break Subclass (to the extent it is based upon whether Defendant denied second meal breaks altogether); and 8. Wage Statement Subclass. The Court further grants Plaintiffs' motion to appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives and to appoint Matern Law Group, PC as class counsel. Finally, the Court denies with leave to amend the following subclasses: 1. Meal Break Subclass (to the extent it is based upon whether Defendant failed to provide employees with full meal breaks due to time spent walking to and from break areas, U.S. Navy checks, donning/doffing, and tending to equipment); 2. Rest Break Subclass (to the extent it is based upon whether Defendant failed to provide employees with full rest breaks due to time spent walking to and from break areas, U.S. Navy checks, donning/doffing, and tending to equipment); 3. Reimbursement Cellphone Subclass; and 4. Reimbursement Personal Protective Gear and Tools/Equipment Subclass. The Court finds these derivative claims are suitable for class certification, but only as it relates to the subclasses and underlying claims that this Court has granted class certification in the preceding sections of this Order. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time this action is certified." The Plaintiffs alternatively move to certify the following subclasses: 1. Minimum Wage Security Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California from October 26, 2017 through March 30, 2020 who were required to go through a security screening. 2. Overtime Security Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California from October 26, 2017 through March 30, 2020 who were required to go through a security screening and who worked a shift longer than 8 hours in a workday and/or more than 40 hours in a workweek. 3. Rounding Minimum Wage Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, whose time punches were rounded. 4. Rounding Overtime Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, whose time punches were rounded and who worked shifts longer than 8 hours in a workday and/or more than 40 hours in a workweek. 5. Overtime Regular Rate of Pay Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who received overtime pay in the same workweek as additional remuneration, including shift differentials and other forms of non-discretionary pay, other than regular or overtime earnings. 6. Meal Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who worked one or more shifts longer than five hours. 7. Second Meal Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who worked one or more shifts longer than ten hours. 8. Rest Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who worked one or more shifts of 3.5 hours or longer. 9. Reimbursement Cellphone Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who were not reimbursed for the cost of using their personal cell phones for work-related purposes. 10. Reimbursement Personal Protective Gear and Tools/Equipment Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who were not reimbursed for the cost of purchasing personal protective gear and tools for work-related purposes. 11. Wage Statement Subclass: all non-exempt direct hire employees working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who received wage statements from October 26, 2020 through August 31, 2021 that did not include a line item showing total hours worked. BAE Systems is a provider of non-nuclear ship repairs, modernization, conversion, and overhaul for government and commercial customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rge0p4 at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid in Aseltine Due August 23, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON ASELTINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-00235-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge W. Carleton Metcalf entered an initial pretrial order and case management plan as follows: -- Rule 26 Disclosures: completed -- Phase I Expert Reports: Plaintiffs: April 23, 2024 Defendants: May 23, 2024 -- Phase I Discovery Completion: July 23, 2024 -- Mediation: July 31, 2024 -- Class Certification Motion: Aug. 23, 2024 Bank of America is a bank and financial holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47SXO42 at no extra charge.[CC] BON SECOURS: Durbin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Police Officers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH DURBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02345-JZ (N.D. Ohio, December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Mr. Durbin worked as an armed police officer at the Defendant's facility located at 2600 Navarre Ave., Oregon, Ohio from approximately May 9, 2020 until February 21, 2022. Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc. is a provider of specialty and primary health care services, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com BOULDER BJ: Knerr Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Knerr, On Behalf Of Himself And Those Similarly Situated, v. Boulder BJ, LLC et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00799-JLK-MEH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of a collective action under Section 16(b) the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), comprised of: "all delivery drivers employed by Defendants since the time three years proceeding this Motion plus all periods of tolling; an Order requiring Defendants to identify all delivery drivers they have employed at any time in the last three years plus periods of tolling." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to enter an order: -- Requiring the Defendants to provide notice-related information to Plaintiff’s attorneys within 14 days; and -- directing the issuance of Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form to all such persons. In support of the Motion, Plaintiff incorporates his Memorandum in Support filed contemporaneously herewith. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NojdKd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd, Suite 515 Cincinnati OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com - and - Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and – David Lichtenstein, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID LICHTENSTEIN, LLC 1556 Williams St., Suite 100 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 831-4750 E-mail: dave@lichtensteinlaw.com matt@lichtensteinlaw.com kristina@lichtensteinlaw.com CANO HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------- Cano Health, 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 it is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder of the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 18, 2022, against it and certain of its former officers, captioned "Alberto Gonzalez v. Cano Health, Inc. f/k/a Jaws Acquisition Corp., et al.," No. 1:22-cv-20827. An amended complaint was filed on February 21, 2023. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on April 7, 2023. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company regarding compliance with GAAP and the timing of its revenue recognition from Medicare Advantage contracts in 2021. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, certification of a class action and unspecified compensatory damages for purchasers of the company's common stock between May 7, 2021 and February 25, 2022, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On October 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which amendment would extend the putative class period to end on August 10, 2023. Defendants filed an opposition to said motion for leave to amend on November 8, 2023. Cano Health, Inc., formerly known as Primary Care (ITC) Intermediate Holdings, LLC, provides value-based medical care for its members, providing high-touch population health and wellness services to Medicare Advantage, Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health, Medicare patients under ACO and Medicaid capitated members, particularly in underserved communities by leveraging its platform to deliver high-quality health care services. It also operates pharmacies in the network for the purpose of providing a full range of managed care services to its members. CANOO INC: Third Amended Complaint Reply Due Feb. 8, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------- Canoo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Form for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2023, that the court has set deadline for third amended consolidated complaint on December 7, 2023, for lead plaintiff to respond to opposition to a motion to dismiss on January 11, 2024, and reply in support of a motion to dismiss the third amended consolidated complaint on February 8, 2024. On April 2, 2021 and April 9, 2021, the Company was named as a defendant in putative class action complaints filed in California on behalf of individuals who purchased or acquired shares of the Company's stock during a specified period. Through the complaint, plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. The Company has filed a pending motion to dismiss the complaints. On February 28, 2023, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On March 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint. On March 23, 2023, the court entered a stipulated order setting a briefing schedule on the Company's anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On April 10, 2023, the court entered a stipulated order granting the lead plaintiff leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint and relieving defendants of any obligation to respond to the second amended consolidated complaint. Under the April 10, 2023 order, within 14 days of the release of any order regarding a settlement between the Company and the SEC, the parties shall confer and jointly submit a proposed schedule for the filing of any third amended consolidated complaint and for the filing of the defendant's response to the third amended consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint on September 8, 2023. The court entered a stipulated order setting the deadline to respond to the third amended consolidated complaint to December 7, 2023 and setting January 11, 2024 as the deadline for lead plaintiff's opposition to a motion to dismiss and February 8, 2024 as the deadline for a reply in support of a motion to dismiss the third amended consolidated complaint. Canoo Inc. is a mobility technology company into electric vehicles development. CITADEL SERVICING: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 8, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FALON BALLARD AND MATTHEW BALLARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CITADEL SERVICING CORPORATION, A/K/A ACRA LENDING; AND DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:22-cv-01679-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order modifying briefing schedule for motion for class certification: Event Date Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on July 18, 2024 Motions in Limine Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Sept. 14, 2023 Pleadings/Add Parties Deadline for Plaintiff's Class Feb. 8, 2024 Certification Motion Deadline for Defendants' Opposition Mar. 7, 2024 to Class Certification Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply to Opposition Mar. 28, 2024 Hearing on Class Certification Motion Apr. 18, 2024 Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off Jan. 31, 2024 (no later than deadline for filing dispositive motions) Last Date to Hear Motions Apr. 18, 2024 Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference May 2, 2024 [L.R. 16-15] A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47QKH3u at no extra charge.[CC] CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Riverdale Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appeal Div. ---------------------------------------------------------------- RIVERDALE JEWISH CENTER filed an appeal in its lawsuit entitled Riverdale Jewish Center, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 651032/2022. The case type is stated as Civil Action - General. The appellate case is captioned Riverdale Jewish Center, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated vs. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 23-06098, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on November 27, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner Riverdale Jewish Center, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Shawn Rabin, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 CONSUMER FINANCIAL: Jones Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARZANNA JONES and HEYNARD L. PAZ-CHOW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ROHIT CHOPRA, in his official capacity as Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Case No. 1:18-cv-02132-BAH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting final approval to the Settlement and certifying the class for settlement purposes. On September 15, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement and provisionally certified the class, finding in a thorough opinion that the proposed Settlement and class sufficiently satisfied the Rule 23(e) requirements for approval and the Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) requirements for certification. Consumer Financial is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tdY3aR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George S. Robot, Esq. Linda D. Friedman, Esq. Truscenialyn Brooks, Esq. Caitlin M. Kearney, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD. 303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 431-0888 E-mail: lfriedman@sfltd.com grobot@slftd.com tbrooks@sfltd.com ckearney@sfltd.com - and - Justin L. Leinenweber, Esq. JUSTIN L. LEINENWEBER, P.C. 120 N LaSalle St Ste 2000, Chicago, IL 60618 Telephone: (312) 857-3405 E-mail: justin@ilesq.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that Cook County Health & Hospitals System has again been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing it of allowing patient information to be exposed in a data breach. In September, the hospital began notifying patients of the breach, which occurred between March 27 and May 2, according to the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court. An "unauthorized party" accessed files of 1.2 million CCH patients, according to the notice, states the lawsuit, which also names a CCH technology contractor, Perry Johnson & Associates, as a defendant. "Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and class members' private information - and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information," the lawsuit states. "This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect its affiliates' patients' sensitive data." Hackers targeted the patient's private information, "because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and class members," the suit states. "The present and continuing risk to victims of the data breach will remain for their respective lifetimes." The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring tighter security for patient medical information, damages and attorney fees. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Gary M. Klinger, of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLC, of Chicago. Martin v. Cook County Health and Hospital System, Cook County Circuit Court, 2023CH09558 [GN] COREPOWER YOGA: Bid to Dismiss Suit Continued to Jan. 19, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEMENS D. KANG, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COREPOWER YOGA LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; KADA O'CONNOR, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-09054-JLS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order approving joint stipulation to stay the Defendant's motion to dismiss pending ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to remand. 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is continued to Friday, January 19, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. so that it may be heard after Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 2. The Court will not set any deadlines as to a motion for class certification, nor is the case stayed in any manner. The deadline for a motion for class certification will be set by the Court's Scheduling Order. CorePower offers fitness classes that practice various styles and levels of yoga. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4a77J7E at no extra charge.[CC] CORTEVA INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Cockerill Class Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL, et al., v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The attached notice is the final court approved notice in this action. 2. The notice must be sent out by December 18, 2023, unless Defendants file their anticipated petition for interlocutory appeal by December 14, 2023. 3. If Defendants file a petition for interlocutory appeal by December 14, 2023, the Court will postpone sending the notice until any appellate matters regarding class certification are resolved by the Third Circuit. Plaintiff shall respond to the petition by December 30, 2023. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GFQXz7 at no extra charge.[CC] COVIA HOLDINGS: $6MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Dec. 18 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio-Eastern Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Covia Holdings Corporation f/k/a Fairmount Santrol Holdings, Inc. securities (NYSE: CVIA, OTC: CVIAQ, and NYSE: FMSA): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE SECURITIES OF COVIA HOLDINGS CORPORATION F/K/A/ FAIRMOUNT SANTROL HOLDINGS, INC. ("COVIA") FROM MARCH 10, 2016 THROUGH JUNE 29, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, that a hearing will be held on April 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Carl B. Stokes U.S. Court House, 801 West Superior Avenue, Courtroom 16B, Cleveland, OH 44113, or by telephonic or videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $6,000,000 ("Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up one third of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $95,000, and awards to Plaintiffs of no more than $25,000 total, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 25, 2023. If you purchased Covia common stock, or purchased call options or sold put options on Covia common stock during the period from March 10, 2016 through June 29, 2020, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Covia securities. If you have not received a postcard providing instructions for receiving a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to or calling Covia Holdings Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net/CVIA. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof of Claim electronically at www.strategicclaims.net/CVIA or postmarked no later than March 11, 2024 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion in the manner and form explained in the Long Notice to the Claims Administrator so that it is received no later than March 20, 2024. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and an award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the Long Notice and received no later than March 20, 2024, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Northern District of Ohio Carl B. Stokes U.S. Court House 801 West Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 LEAD COUNSEL: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Phillip Kim 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Gabor Balassa 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Phillip Kim 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-686-1060 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: November 20, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CREDIT UNION: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid to Leave to Amend Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lucero, Brenda et al v. Credit Union Retirement Plan Association, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00208 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge James D Peterson entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) case. The suit alleges violation of the ERISA involving Breach of Fiduciary Duties. The Plaintiffs do not ask to assert any new claims or otherwise change the scope of the case. Rather, the sole purpose of the amendment is to substitute as defendants the Board of Trustees of Retirement Plans and the Plan Administrative Committee for the Board of Trustees of the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association. The Defendants do not oppose the motion, and neither side suggests that the amendment will have any effect on either the pending motion for class certification or the case schedule. The Plaintiffs are directed to promptly file the amended complaint as a separate docket entry.[CC] CROWN EQUIPMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-08993 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as a forklift technician. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION is an Ohio corporation, operates as manufacturers of industrial forklift trucks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Francisco Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN WEBB and DEBBIE FRANCISCO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00211-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky., Nov. 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendant negligently breached its duty of care by causing the train to derail by failing to adhere to industry standards, and by allowing the release of molten sulfur from the train car, causing the Plaintiffs and Class Members to be significantly exposed to dangerous toxins far higher than normal background levels. On November 22, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., Thanksgiving Eve became a day of chaos and catastrophe for residents living in Rockcastle County, Kentucky, when a nearby train derailment caused a devastating chain reaction -- a chemical spill followed by a deadly fire that poured poisonous gases into their community. The train derailment involved at least 16 train cars operated by CSX. CSX confirmed that at least the cars containing molten sulfur were breached, and part of the spilled sulfur caught on fire. The fire continued to burn for nearly 24-hours. While the fire was burning, sulfur dioxide poured into the atmosphere and the neighboring communities, the lawsuit says. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and others in the community have suffered significant and sustained irritation to their throats, eyes, lungs, mouths and lips, and had their properties invaded by dangerous plumes of chemical smoke. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's ultrahazardous activities, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were significantly exposed to toxic chemicals, and have suffered discomfort, inconvenience, loss of use and enjoyment of property, emotional distress, diminution in property value, increased risks of future illness, and the present need for medical monitoring to ensure early detection of any such disease or illness, asserts the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs bring this class action seeking relief from CSX’s reckless and willfully indifferent conduct. CSX is a supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Autry, Esq. Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 333 W. Vine St, St 1200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 899-8785 E-mail: jautry@forthepeople.com jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Crowl Suit Consolidated with Wise ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN CROWL, v. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-04007-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order consolidating cases for all purposes. -- Crowl v. Cupertino Electric, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-4007, and -- Wise v. Cupertino Electric Inc., Case No. 23-cv-4232. The consolidated action will be captioned In re Cupertino Electric Inc. Litigation and all future filings will be filed in Case No. 23-cv-4007. The Court orders that the Clerk of the Court administratively close Case No. 23-cv-4232. Counsel for Crowl and Wise shall propose a schedule for filing a consolidated complaint and file the proposed schedule within 10 days of the date of this Order. Cupertino Electric is a privately owned electrical engineering and construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RhPfJ1 at no extra charge.[CC] CVS HEALTH: Filling for Class Cert Bid Due March 7, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN BAKER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-11483-PBS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered a scheduling order as follows: a. Initial Disclosures: Dec. 15, 2023 b. Amendments to Pleadings: 21 days after Defendants answer the Complaint c. Close of Fact Discovery: Oct. 11, 2024 d. Plaintiffs' experts (for class Nov. 22, 2024 certification and merits): e. The Defendant's experts: Dec. 22, 2024 f. Close of Expert Discovery: Feb. 7, 2025 g. Motion for Summary Judgment, March 7, 2025 Class Certification Motions, and Daubert Motions: CVS Health offers prescription medications, healthcare and wellness products, beauty products, and personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NlWYVe at no extra charge.[CC] CYBELANGEL USA: Unopposed Bid for Extension of Time OK'd in Koeller ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Koeller v. CybelAngel USA Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00319 (E.D. Mo., Filed March 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to21 motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CybelAngel is a leader in cybersecurity solutions focused on External Attack Surface Protection and Management.[CC] D & M BOLANOS: Gomez Seeks Court-Approved Notice to Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlos Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. D & M Bolanos Drywall, LLC, Mirna Bolanos, individually, David Bolanos, individually, and Benjamin Ward, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-02334-SHM-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting court-approved notice of this matter to other employees, thus allowing those receiving notice to join this group action as plaintiffs, with the eligible class of employees defined as follows: "All individuals employed and paid by D & M Bolanos Drywall, LLC from May 25, 2020 to present in jobs involving painting and construction who were compensated on an hourly basis and who were not paid an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a work week;" (2) directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel within 10 days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, last known addresses, last known email addresses, and last known phone numbers for the class of employees defined above; and (3) authorizing him to send notice and consent to join to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendants' counsel by first-class mail and email so that they may assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48cifsx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan G. Crone, Esq. Philip Oliphant, Esq. THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC 88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 737-7740 Facsimile: (901) 474-7926 E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com DBI SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN PRIEST, ET AL. On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. DBI SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00712-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Roderick C. Young entered an order: (1) granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the Dismissal deadline; (2) vacating the Dec. 14, 2023 deadline for dismissal; and (3) directing the Plaintiffs' to file a Motion for Class Certification and a Motion for Default Judgment on or by January 31, 2024. DBI Services operates as an asset management and infrastructure services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4acGsAO at no extra charge.[CC] DENTSPLY SIRONA: Parties Seek More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-07253-NG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for: (a) Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification, from December 21, 2023 to February 8, 2024; and (b) for Lead Plaintiff's reply to that motion, from February 23, 2024 to April 10, 2024. A copy of the Parties motion dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uLcROz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher P. Malloy, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 E-mail: christopher.malloy@skadden.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Parties Seek to Extend May 31, 2023 Sched Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-07253-NG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines set forth in the May 31, 2023 Scheduling Order for the Defendants to file their opposition papers and for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply papers in connection with Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Lead Plaintiff has advised Defendants of the recent unavailability for a deposition of its representative due to an unexpected medical leave. Accordingly, the parties filed a joint request to Magistrate Judge Kuo to extend from December 7, 2023 to January 25, 2024 the deadline for the Lead Plaintiff's deposition to occur. Because the extension of this deadline (which relates to class certification discovery) impacts the parties’ briefing on the class certification motion, the parties also requested an extension of the deadlines for Defendants' opposition to the class certification motion to February 8, 2024 and for Lead Plaintiff’s reply to April 10, 2024. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher P. Malloy, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 E-mail: christopher.malloy@skadden.com DOTERRA INT'L: Bingham Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN BINGHAM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, v. DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DOTERRA UNITED STATES, LLC, and DOTERRA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00707-DBB-DBP (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. section 216(b) in its entirety. Finally, the Defendants falsely claimed that the underpayment amount was doubled "to compensate for the inconvenience" rather than the statutory compulsion to do so, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiff, Dustin Bingham, on behalf of himself and others similarly situation in the Proposed FLSA Collective Action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. section 206, F. R. Civ. P. 7, and DUCivR7-1 brings this Motion for Preliminary Certification in FLSA Collection Action. The Plaintiffs assert as follows: -- The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants doTERRA International, LLC and doTERRA, Inc., which own, operation, and do business as, to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). -- The Plaintiffs assert their FLSA claims, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, as a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs seek an order from the court: (1) conditionally certifying the collective action; (2) requiring specific discovery (to be provided within ten days of conditional certification) a computer-readable list of the names, addresses, email address, social security numbers, and telephone number for all persons employed by Defendant as hourly non-exempt employee from October 6, 2020 to the present; (3) authorizing notice be sent to all non-exempt employees who work or have worked for Defendants in Pleasant Grove, Utah since October 6, 2020 to present; and (4) equitably toll the statute of limitation from the date of filing the complaint until 30 days after Defendants discloses the names and contact information requested herein to afford potential collective class members to opt-in. doTERRA sources, tests, manufactures, and distributes essential oils and wellness products nationally and internationally with principal offices located in Pleasant Grove, Utah. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tbldP6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell B. Weekes, Esq. WEEKES LAW, LLC 491 N. Bluff St., Ste. 201 St. George, UT 84770 Telephone: (801) 228-0251 E-mail: rbw@weekes-law.com - and - Jared Bramwell, Esq. KELLY & BRAMWELL, P.C. 11576 South State St. Bldg. 1002 Draper, UT 84020 Telephone: (801) 495-2559 Facsimile: (801) 495-0621 E-mail: jared@kellybramwell.com DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN PETRI, and SHERDON GREEN, themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DRIVE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, and PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-20510-CPO-EAP (D.N.J.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend the deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants request that the time to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be extended to 14 days following the Court's ruling on their motion for Leave to Amend their Answer and Defenses to the First Amended Complaint and Assert a Counterclaim against Plaintiff Green. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on September 21, 2023. The Defendants' deadline to respond is December 15, 2023. Drive New Jersey offers property and casualty insurance products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46VN57L at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Craig Carpenito, Esq. Thomas J. Scrivo, Esq. Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. Daniel S. Sanders III, Esq. Julia C. Barrett, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 6th Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 E-mail: ccarpenito@kslaw.com tscrivo@kslaw.com jcashdan@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com jbarrett@kslaw.com EBERJEY HOLDINGS: Bilbao Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Axel Bilbao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EBERJEY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 23- 02067 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 4, 2023, and assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-62308-RKA. The Plaintiff contends that, with each promotional text message sent, Eberjey "transmitted a telephone number to the Caller ID Service of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class that was not capable of receiving telephone calls and failed to connect the recipients, including Plaintiff," to Eberjey. The Plaintiff contends that by doing so, Eberjey violated the "Caller ID Rules" contained in the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Ganoza, Esq. FOLEY &LARDNER LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1900 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-482-8400 Email: lganoza@foley.com - and - Caroline C. Dunkle, Esq. FOLEY &LARDNER LLP 100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: 813-229-2300 Email: cdunkle@foley.com - and - Irina N. Kashcheyeva, Esq. FOLEY &LARDNER LLP 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Phone: (313) 234-7170 Email: ikashcheyeva@foley.com EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emergent Biosolutions 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 11, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated federal securities class suits in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On April 20, 2021, May 14, 2021, and June 2, 2021, putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former senior officers in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These complaints were filed by Palm Tran, Inc. – Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan; Alan I. Roth; and Stephen M. Weiss, respectively. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing capabilities with respect to COVID-19 vaccine bulk drug substance (referred to herein as "CDMO Manufacturing Capabilities"). These cases were consolidated on December 23, 2021, under the caption In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:21-cv-00955-PWG (the "Federal Securities Class Action"). The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated matter (the "Lead Plaintiffs") are Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan and The City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Firefighters' Retirement System. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 19, 2022 and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on July 19, 2022. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was conducted on April 19, 2023 and an order was entered on September 1, 2023, granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The defendant's answer to the complaint was filed on October 30, 2023. The defendants believe that the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to defend the matters vigorously. Headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Emergent BioSolutions Inc. is a life sciences company that provides pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical devices and contract manufacturing services related to public health threats affecting civilian and military populations. ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES: Lomeli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Baneli Lomeli, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV02958 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought violation of California Labor Code for unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; wages not timely paid during employment; non-compliant wage statements; failed to keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight (8) hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees. Environmental Alternatives was and is a California corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: aa@calljustice.com ENVISION HEALTHCARE: $$177.5MM Settlement to be Heard on March 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Envision Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION In re ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01112 (Consolidated with Case Nos. 3:17-cv-01323 and 3:17-cv-01397) CLASS ACTION Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr. Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION ("EHC") AND/OR ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. ("EHH" AND COLLECTIVELY WITH EHC, "ENVISION")1 BETWEEN FEBRUARY 3, 2014 AND OCTOBER 31, 2017, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on March 21, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr. at the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, Courtroom 6D, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")2 for $177.5 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay Plaintiffs for their costs and expenses in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website, www.EnvisionSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to that website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information will be posted to the Settlement website, www.EnvisionSecuritiesLitigation.com. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ENVISION COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 3, 2014 AND OCTOBER 31, 2017, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than April 8, 2024) or electronically (no later than April 8, 2024). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by April 8, 2024 will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Envision common stock between February 3, 2014 and October 31, 2017, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed online at www.EnvisionSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to: Envision Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 301170 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Envision, Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Class Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY FEBRUARY 29, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE $177.5 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $1.9 MILLION, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR COSTS AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $95,000 IN THE AGGREGATE. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY FEBRUARY 29, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: November 20, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION 1 On May 15, 2023, Envision Healthcare Corporation filed a voluntary petition under Title 11 of the United States Code, Chapter 11, Case No. 23-90342, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. 2 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.EnvisionSecuritiesLitigation.com. EXP WORLD HOLDINGS: Faces Phillips Class Suit in Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- Exp World Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2023, that the Company faces the Phillips class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 22, 2023, a putative class action complaint under the original caption Phillips, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors et. al. (Case No.:1:23-cv-05392-SEG, the “Class Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, naming The National Association of Realtors and certain unaffiliated real estate brokerages as defendants. On December 6, 2023, the putative class action complaint was amended to expand the scope of the Class Action, replace the putative class representatives and name additional real estate brokerages, including the Company, as defendants. The amended Class Action complaint alleges that defendants participated in a system that resulted in sellers of residential property paying inflated buyer-broker commissions in violation of federal and Georgia antitrust laws and in violation of Georgia deceptive trade practice and consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer brokers or from otherwise restricting competition among buyer brokers and seller brokers and an award of declaratory relief and damages or restitution in an amount to be proven at trial, exemplary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of suit. Plaintiffs assert defendants are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their alleged co-conspirators, regardless of whether the co-conspirators are explicitly named as defendants in the amended complaint. The Company believes that additional antitrust litigation may be possible. The Company cannot provide any assurances that results of such litigation will not have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. EXPENSIFY INC: Faces Wilhite Suit Over 36.89% Stock Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- CODY WILHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXPENSIFY, INC., DAVID BARRETT, RYAN SCHAFFER, BLAKE BARTLETT, and ROBERT LENT, Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR (D. Or., Nov. 29, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Expensify common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on November 11, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"), pursuant to the the Securities Act of 1933. On November 12, 2021, Expensify filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). The Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Expensify's revenue growth was highly susceptible to structural and macroeconomic headwinds; as a result, the Company overstated the efficacy of its business model and the likelihood it would meet the long-term growth projections touted in the Offering Documents, the lawsuit asserts. On June 12, 2023, Morgan Stanley downgraded Expensify to Underweight from Equal-weight, citing structural headwinds and the Company's risk-reward profile. On this news, Expensify's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or 6.28%, to close at $6.72 per share on June 12, 2023. Then, on August 8, 2023, Expensify issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2023 financial and operating results. Expensify reported GAAP EPS of -$0.14, missing consensus estimate of -$0.07, and revenue of $38.9 million, which likewise missed the consensus estimate of $41.5 million. Finally, after the market closed on November 7, 2023, Expensify issued a press release announcing third quarter 2023 financial and operating results that once again missed consensus estimates amid macroeconomic headwinds. Expensify reported a Q3 GAAP loss of $0.21 per share and a 14.1% year-over-year revenue decline. On this news, Expensify's stock price fell $1.07 per share, or 36.89%, to close at $1.83 per share on November 8, 2023. As of the time this Complaint was filed, Expensify's securities continue to trade below the $27 per share Offering price, damaging investors, the lawsuit claims. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of Expensify's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Expensify securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO. Expensify provides a cloud-based expense management software platform to individuals, small businesses, and corporations in the U.S. and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aurelia Erickson, Esq. Robert J. McGaughey, Esq. CHENOWETH LAW GROUP, PC 510 SW Fifth Ave., Fourth Floor Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 221-7958 Facsimile: (503) 221-2182 E-mail: aerickson@chenowethlaw.com bobm@chenowethlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com FARADAY FUTURE: Faces Consolidated Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Faraday Future Intelligent Electric 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 it is currently facing a consolidated securities class action pending in the Court of Chancery in Delaware. In June 2022, a verified stockholder class action lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duties was filed in the Court of Chancery (Yun Class Action). It was consolidated into another action that was designated as the operative pleading. On April 7 2023, the defendants filed opening briefs in support of their respective motions to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs filed an omnibus answering brief in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss on September 26, 2023. Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. conducts its operations through the subsidiaries of FF Intelligent Mobility Global Holdings Ltd. and its consolidated subsidiaries. The operate a global shared intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company with a vision to reformat the automotive industry. FARADAY FUTURE: Settles Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Faraday Future Intelligent Electric 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 in October 2023, the company agreed, in principle, to settle a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company denies all allegations but deemed a settlement to be in its best interest based on the facts and circumstances of the case and recommendation of a neutral mediator. The settlement agreement provides for a non-reversionary cash payment of $7.5 million for the benefit of the settlement class in exchange for the release of all claims asserted against the company by the lead plaintiffs. On November 7, 2023, preliminary approval for the settlement was granted, consequently, the company and plaintiffs will move forward with the settlement process. Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. conducts its operations through the subsidiaries of FF Intelligent Mobility Global Holdings Ltd. and its consolidated subsidiaries. The operate a global shared intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company with a vision to reformat the automotive industry. FLIPPS MEDIA: Discloses Video Habits to Facebook, Sancruzado Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SANCRUZADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLIPPS MEDIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24659 (S.D. Fla., December 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing habits of the visitors to its website, www.fite.tv, without consent. The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided to it by Facebook. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on the Defendant's website and reported their viewing history to Facebook along with their unique Facebook Identification numbers. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights. Flipps Media, Inc. is a video tape service provider, with its principal place of business in Uniondale, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW. P.A. 515 E. las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com FRESH DINING: Faces Carter Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- KIERA CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESH DINING CONCEPTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-10713 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York Labor Law including unpaid spread of hours, unpaid uniform maintenance pay, failure to pay schedule change premiums, failure to pay timely wages, and failure to provide wage notice. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work full-time as a shift leader at one of their combined Auntie Anne's & Cinnabon's locations at 2857 Third Avenue, Bronx, New York from May 10, 2023, until her termination on or about July 24, 2023. Fresh Dining Concepts LLC is a food establishment owner and operator based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com GEORGE ARCHOS: Flood Enterprises Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against George Archos, et al. The case is styled as Flood Enterprises, Inc., BKJ Holding Corp, LLC, BKJ Holding Corp, LLC, Christine Heck, and others similarly situated v. George Archos, Cary Millstein, Darren Weiss, Rockview Capital Inc., Ronald Schmeichel, Samuel Dorf, Case No. 2023-1125-SG (Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 5, 2023). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." George Archos is the founder & CEO of Verano Holdings. He is a logistics and operations guru..[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Margules, Esq. Phone: (302) 252-4432 Fax: (215) 864-8999 - and - Elizabeth A. Sloan, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP-WILMINGTON 919 N Market St 11th Fl Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 252-4465 Fax: (302) 252-4466 Email: SloanE@ballardspahr.com GOOGLE LLC: Helena World Sues Over Digital News Monopoly -------------------------------------------------------- HELENA WORLD CHRONICLE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03677 (D. Col., Dec. 11, 2023) alleges violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant siphons off billions of readers and billions of dollars from Publishers through an anticompetitive scheme that extracts their content, publishes it on Google, and diverts readers and ad revenue. This scheme is part of an unlawful strategy to attract, trap, and maximize users within a "walled garden" that entrenches Google's monopoly as the world's largest search engine. Google has coerced Publishers into a Hobson's choice: surrender their content or disappear from search and lose the single largest source of referral traffic and associated revenue. Google maintains its search monopoly and abuses it dominance through various tying arrangements that lock in and exploit Publishers as input suppliers; through foreclosure contracts that block rival search engines, and through more than 260 mergers and acquisitions that enable it to entrench and enlarge its dominant position. The anticompetitive effects of Google's scheme cause profound harm in its monopoly markets to digital news and reference Publishers, and ultimately to the marketplace of ideas. Google has created a zero-click world in which users remain in its ecosystem and are siphoned away from Publishers, says the suit. GOOGLE LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. The Company focuses on web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Scott A. Gilmore, Esq. Mandy Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com sgilmore@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us erichschork@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us GROUP HEALTH: Plavin Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PLAVIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Steven Plavin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Group Health Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3-17-cv-01462, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges unjust enrichment and violations of New York's General Business Law and Insurance Law based on Group Health's marketing statements about coverage benefits for its health insurance plan, which was bargained for and sponsored by Plavin's employer, the City of New York. On Nov. 15, 2023, Nicholas Carullo and Jared Kagan filed a letter stipulation for dismissal, which the Court approved through an Order entered Judge Robert D. Mariani on Nov. 16, 2023. The Plaintiffs' remaining claim on unjust enrichment was dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The appellate case is captioned Steven Plavin, et al. v. Group Health Inc., Case No. 23-3100, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 28, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN PLAVIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: William C. Carmody, Esq. Nicholas C. Carullo, Esq. Mark H. Hatch-Miller, Esq. Ari S. Ruben, Esq. Steven M. Shepard, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8334 (212) 336-8330 (212) 336-8332 (212) 729-2010 - and - Steve M. Cohen, Esq. 15 Broad Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (917) 364-4197 - and - Michael F. Cosgrove, Esq. J. Timothy Hinton, Jr., Esq. HAGGERTY HINTON & COSGROVE 1401 Monroe Avenue, Suite 2 Dunmore, PA 18509 Telephone: (570) 340-9845 - and - Halley W. Josephs, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Defendant-Appellee GROUP HEALTH INC. is represented by: John Gleeson, Esq. Jared I. Kagan, Esq. Maura K. Monaghan, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON 66 Hudson Boulevard New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 909-7281 (212) 909-6000 - and - Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Esq. LEVAN STAPLETON SEGAL COCHRAN 1760 Market Street, Suite 403 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 561-1500 HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Violates PUMP Act, Vera Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Brecarri Vera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hornblower Cruises and Events, LLC d/b/a City Experiences, Case No. 1:23-cv-16330 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendant fails to provide a "reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk" and fail to provide a "place that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk," in violation of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP) Act. According to the complaint, the employees are forced to pump breast milk in common areas such as, for example, the deck of cruise boats, behind the bar, or in bathrooms. The Defendant's failure to comply with the PUMP Act has significantly impacted Ms.Vera and other breastfeeding employees of the Defendant. Instead of supporting breastfeeding mothers, the Defendant's practices forced those mothers into a Hobson's choice between using demeaning, non-private spaces to express milk, abandoning pumping at work altogether, or quitting their jobs, the lawsuit alleges. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Vera experienced engorgement and a reduction in her milk supply for her new baby. This reduction and the lack of accommodations provided by the Defendant, have caused Ms. Vera to endure pain, anguish, anxiety, hardship, humiliation, and emotional distress. The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of herself and a nationwide collective of similarly situated former and current employees of Hornblower. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and pre-and post-judgment interest. Plaintiff Brecarri Vera was an employee of Hornblower at Chicago Navy Pier at 600 E. Grand Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Vera had her baby in February 2023 and commenced her employment in May 2023. Hornblower is a San Francisco–based charter yacht, dining cruise and ferry service company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason Barney, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Inotiv, 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 the Grobler securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming the Company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A. Taylor as defendants, captioned Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.). The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the Company's acquisition of Envigo RMS and its regulatory compliance. On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System was appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff. Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same defendants, in addition to John E. Sagartz and Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along with a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 23, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint against the aforementioned defendants asserting the same claims as the amended complaint and further alleging that false and misleading statements and material omissions were made concerning the Company's non-human primate business. The purported class in the operative complaint includes all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between September 21, 2021 and November 16, 2022, and the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion has been fully briefed since April 28, 2023, and is currently pending. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the Company believes the class action to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself. Inotiv purports to be a contract research organization which provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services and research models and related products and services.[BN] JB HI-FI: Faces Class Suit Over "Junk" Warranties ------------------------------------------------- Tom Watson of Money Mag reports that qre extended warranties worth it? That's one of the questions at the heart of a new class action launched by law firm Maurice Blackburn on behalf of eligible customers of electronics retailer JB Hi-Fi. The class action alleges that JB Hi-Fi misled customers on the value provided by its extended warranties (often called Extra Care or Extended Care Plans) for more than a decade - plans which are actively promoted by the retailer with purchases of electronics and other appliances. Maurice Blackburn states that the plans offer "little or no value" to customers beyond the consumer rights they are already entitled to under Australian Consumer Law. "These warranties are in most cases little more than a junk add-on to consumers' purchase of the household goods they actually want," says Miranda Nagy, principal lawyer for Maurice Blackburn. "JB's extended warranties expire just 3-6 years after purchase, but they add substantially to the cost. Our case alleges they added nothing meaningful to the strong rights for repair, replacement or refund under the Australian Consumer Law rights that consumers already enjoy." The class action is seeking compensation for customers who purchased an extended warranty plan from JB Hi-Fi between January 2011 and November 2023. In a statement released on December 11, 2023, JB Hi-Fi said that it believes it has complied with the relevant laws at all times and would therefore be defending the proceedings. The right to repair, replacement or refund According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), if someone purchases a product which ends up being faulty, doesn't work at all, is unsafe or simply doesn't appear as it should, they are entitled to a repair, replacement or a refund. The same applies to services. There are caveats though. In some situations the customer will be able to choose their preferred remedy, while in others the business will be able to choose - it depends on whether the problem is related to a product or service, and whether the issue is a major or minor one. Importantly, these rights can't be taken away by businesses - no matter what the fine print may say. Nor can a business direct customers to a manufacturer if something goes wrong, for example, if a television stops working. The retailer is responsible for solving the issue. Mark Serrels, spokesperson for consumer advocacy group Choice, says that many Australians are simply not aware of these rights though. "A lot of people just don't know. The last research we did in June 2023 found that seven in ten people thought they wouldn't be able to receive a refund, repair or replacement for a faulty product after their manufacturer's warranty had expired. "So a lot of people aren't really aware of what their rights are here, which is one of the big reasons why companies like JB Hi-Fi are able to so easily convince consumers to buy extended warranties." Are extended warranties worth it? One point of confusion for some consumers in this realm comes in the difference between consumer rights on the one hand and warranties on the other. Simply put, rights and guarantees are enshrined under law, while warranties are essentially promises made by businesses about the standard of a product or service they offer. Warranties don't negate or supersede consumer rights. One of the most common types of warranties is a manufacturer's warranty which may promise that if a product (e.g. a toaster) becomes defective during a certain timeframe after purchase, they will fix or replace it. These are generally included as part of the purchase. Then there are extended warranties. These typically extend the period of cover provided by a manufacturer's warranty for an extra cost, and are sold by retailers and manufacturers. Serrels believes that because they don't always provide additional cover that is not already guaranteed under Consumer Law though, extended warranties are hardly ever worth the money. "There's a handful of times when an extended warranty might be worth it, but they're very, very rare. And I would say, as a baseline, it's usually just best to say no to them. "Australian Consumer Law is quite good and it really covers you in almost every way that you would expect an extended warranty to cover you, so there's really no need to go ahead and buy one of those extended warranties." Avoiding the extended warranty upsell Saying no to an extended warranty can be hard though, especially if you're shopping in-store and talking to someone face-to-face. After all, sales agents can often play on your emotions and uncertainty. In fact, in their research, Choice found that 39% of customers who ended up purchasing an extended warranty hadn't planned to do so beforehand. For Serrel, this highlights the importance of consumers being privy to their rights and then, should they wish to, using this information to push back against unwanted warranties. "Very recently I had to return a broken laptop. I just had my phone ready with a tab open with Australian Consumer Law on it, so as soon as I got pushback and was told to take it back to Apple, I just opened that tab and told them that they either had to give me a refund or fix it in-store. "That did the job, and they just backed into the bushes like Homer Simpson." How to join the JB Hi-Fi class action While JB Hi-Fi customers who purchased an Extra Care or Extended Care Plan between 2011 and the end of November won't need to sign up to be part of the class action, they can register their interest with Maurice Blackburn to receive updates in the future. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Sues Over Antibody Drug Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC.; GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.; CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC.; and CFA, LLC d/b/a CAREFIRST ADMINISTRATORS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00629 (E.D. Va., Dec. 7, 2023) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in unlawfully delaying the introduction of biosimilar competition for Ustekinumab, a human immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that treats a range of life-threatening autoimmune diseases, including Crohn's disease, plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, and ulcerative colitis, all conditions linked to the IL-12/IL-23 pathway, onto the U.S. market. The Defendants continue to delay biosimilar competition through a series of unlawful acts. To avoid losing exclusivity over Stelara and to maintain its supra-competitive prices, the Defendants implemented a scheme to unlawfully prolong patent protection for Stelara well beyond September 2023. The Defendants used their fraudulently acquired method-of-use patent and its unlawfully procured biosimilar manufacturing patents to extract settlements from each of the would-be biosimilar entrants. Because of these unlawful acts, purchasers of ustekinumab have paid, and continue to pay, supra-competitive prices for ustekinumab. U.S. purchasers of ustekinumab are paying substantially more for the drug than they would if J&J had not engaged in the scheme, says the suit. JOHNSON & JOHNSON manufactures health care products and provides related services for the consumer, pharmaceutical, and medical devices and diagnostics markets. The Company sells products such as skin and hair care products, acetaminophen products, pharmaceuticals, diagnostic equipment, and surgical equipment in countries located around the world. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Marc C. Greco, Esq. Kip A. Harbison, Esq. Michael A. Glasser, Esq. GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C. Crown Center, Suite 600 580 East Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 Facsimile: (757) 625-5959 Email: bill@glasserlaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. Rebekah Glickman-Simon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 Email: tom@hbsslaw.com kristenj@hbsslaw.com hannahb@hbsslaw.com rebekahgs@hbsslaw.com - and - Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Charles Kopel, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Email: PStPhillip@lowey.com URabinovitz@lowey.com Rgirnys@lowey.com Ckopel@lowey.com KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Effects of Abortion Ban -------------------------------------------------------------- Brigitte Amiri of ACLU reports that on December 11, 2023, attorneys informed a Kentucky court that after filing a class-action lawsuit challenging the state's abortion ban last on December 8, 2023, lead plaintiff Jane Doe learned her embryo no longer had cardiac activity. ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project deputy director Brigitte Amiri, who represents Jane Doe, released the following statement: "Jane Doe sought an abortion in Kentucky, and when she could not get one, she bravely came forward to challenge the state's abortion ban. Although she decided to have an abortion, the government denied her the freedom to control her body. Countless Kentuckians face the same harm every day as the result of the abortion ban. Kentuckians like Jane should be able to focus solely on their health and should not have to worry about bringing a lawsuit. But the Kentucky Supreme Court previously held that health care providers could not raise the constitutional rights of their patients. Unfortunately, patient-led challenges like Jane's are our only path forward to strike down the bans under the right to privacy and right to self-determination. We encourage others in Kentucky who are currently pregnant and seeking abortion to reach out to us if they are interested in joining the case—call or text us at (617) 297-7012. We will do everything we can to restore abortion access in Kentucky." The complaint for Jane Doe, et al. v. Daniel Cameron, et al. can be found here. The motion for class action can be found here. The motion for leave for Jane Doe and others similarly situated to proceed under pseudonym can be found here. [GN] KIPLING APPAREL: Faces Calcagno Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINA CALCAGNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIPLING APPAREL CORP. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02247-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal., December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws, California's False Advertising Laws, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more handbags, backpacks, luggage, apparel, accessories, and other items at the Defendant's Kipling Outlet stores that were deceptively represented as discounted from a false advertised reference price. The Defendant marketed the sale prices as discounts from the original prices set forth on the products' price tags for merchandise sold at the Defendant's Kipling Outlet stores. However, the advertised discounts are nothing more than phantom markdowns because (1) the represented original prices, i.e., the prices listed on the price tags for the merchandise, are artificially inflated; (2) the products are never offered for sale at the full original price for any substantial period of time (if at all); and (3) the original prices are never the true market price for the products the Defendant sells, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have overpaid for merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. Kipling Apparel Corp. is an apparel company, with its principal executive offices in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (724) 656-1556 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com LAFARGE CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Carcinogenic Cement Dust --------------------------------------------------------------- Cement Products reports that Neighbors of Lafarge Canada's Exshaw cement plant have filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that the facility is a source of ongoing dust and noise since its expansion in 2016, according to the Calgary Herald. "Following these expansions, the amount of dust leaving the cement plant greatly increased," said law firm Napoli Shkolnik Canada. "Huge clouds of carcinogenic cement dust now regularly leave the plant and blanket nearby properties." The plaintiffs from in and around the hamlets of Exshaw and Lac des Arcs are seeking punitive damages for the plant's impact on residents and for Lafarge's allegedly misleading statements about the facility's environmental effects. Lafarge has yet to respond to the suit but said it has invested more than $30 million this year to reduce the facility's carbon emissions. [GN] LENOIR-RHYNE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Espinal Says ------------------------------------------------------------ FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LENOIR-RHYNE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10776 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023) alleges Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://lr.edu, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. LENOIR-RHYNE UNIVERSITY offers degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level curriculum. The University offers programs including undergraduate degree programs in nursing and business as well as graduate degree programs in accounting and biology. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal MEDICAL EYE: Fails to Safeguard Users' Personal Info, Sheets Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER SHEETS and MICHELLE WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MEDICAL EYE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a MESVISION and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-12892-ADB (D. Mass., Nov. 29, 2023) sues the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' sensitive information, including their full names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, group IDs, and subscriber IDs ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). On August 23, 2023, MESVision learned that Pension Benefit Information, LLC's network, which PSC provided software services to and MESVision relied on for the sending and receiving of sensitive information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. As a result of investigation, MESVision concluded -- on an undisclosed date -- that "the unauthorized individual exfiltrated information from the server on May 28, 2023, and May 31, 2023." On November 14, 2023, MESVision, on behalf of the Defendants, began sending the Plaintiffs and other Data Breach victims a Notice of Data Security Incident letter. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of the Defendants' conduct. These injuries include: invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; and experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to: adequately protect the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members; warn the Plaintiffs and Class Members of the Defendants' inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are current and former users of MESVision healthcare services. As a condition of obtaining benefits at MESVision, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to entrust the Defendants, directly or indirectly, with highly sensitive personal information. MESVision is a "consumer activation company" that provides products and/or services to "healthcare organizations" and other companies.[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 MERCK & CO: Appeals Ruling in Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- MERCK & CO. INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit captioned In Re: Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, et al., Case No. 2-12-cv-03555, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a consolidated putative antitrust and consumer protection class action. On June 25, 2012, Chatom Primary Care P.C., Andrew Klein, M.D., and John I. Sutter, M.D., filed the complaint against Defendant Merck alleging monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, and various state consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of a mumps containing vaccine from Merck. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 20, 2012. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on Nov. 19, 2012. After a ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, discovery commenced in October 2014. The parties engaged in extensive discovery over a protracted period of time. The Defendant began rolling productions on Oct. 31, 2014. The discovery included, inter alia, Merck's production of nearly 144,000 documents, depositions of 24 current and former Merck employees, and third party discovery. After multiple joint requests for extension of the scheduling deadlines, fact discovery closed on June 1, 2017. On Aug. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint to add a claim for attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The Defendant opposed the proposed amendment, arguing that the Plaintiff unduly delayed seeking leave to add a new cause of action after the close of fact discovery, thereby prejudicing Merck's ability to defend against the new claim. On Oct. 30, 2017, the Court agreed with the Defendant, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court's decision focused on the Plaintiff's undue delay in seeking leave to amend, which would prejudice Merck if a new claim was added after fact discovery closed. The Plaintiffs filed objections to the Oct. 30, 2017, Order. On March 13, 2018, Judge C. Darnell Jones, II issued an Order remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge for an in-depth analysis of the extent to which the Defendant would be prejudiced by amendment, and the extent to which undue delay was the basis for the Court's ultimate decision not to grant the Plaintiffs' motion. On Jul. 27, 2023, the Honorable Chad F. Kenney ruled that Merck's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; judgment was entered in favor of defendant Merck on Count II and Count II is dismissed in full and with prejudice; Merck's motion to exclude evidence from Dr. Thomas Copmann and Daubert is denied; the accompanying memorandum shall remain under seal for seven days; any party or non-party seeking to preclude public access to the accompanying memorandum must show particularized good cause in a memorandum not exceeding five pages no later than 12:00 pm on August 3, 2023. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Court filed a redacted memorandum of the July 27 Order. The appellate case is captioned In re: Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 23-3089, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 27, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CHATOM PRIMARY CARE PC, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 - and - Natalie F. Bennett, Esq. MILLER SHAH 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 540-5505 - and - Frederick A. Braunstein, Esq. Jennifer C. Jones, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 - and - M. Stephen Dampier, Esq. DAMPIER LAW FIRM 55 North Section Street P.O. Box 161 Fairhope, AL 36533 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98161 Telephone: (206) 895-5005 - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. MILLER SHAH 1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 903-3170 - and - Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 - and - Reena Jain, Esq. BLANK ROME 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 885-5381 - and - Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER 24 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 201 Ardmore, PA 19003 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 - and - Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 - and - Kellie Lerner, Esq. Dan Rochelson, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 - and - Helina Manesis, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN 40 Wall Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 380-6700 - and - Eamon O'Kelly, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 484-3900 - and - Steven D. Resnick, Esq. PARAFINCZUK WOLF 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 678-0263 - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 - and - Andra Waniek, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW 140 Broadway, 34th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (202) 907-0700 - and - John D. Zaremba, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN 40 Wall Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 380-6700 Defendant-Appellant MERCK & CO. INC. is represented by: Sally W. Bryan, Esq. Christina L. Gaarder, Esq. Kathleen S. Hardway, Esq. Dino S. Sangiamo, Esq. Craig A. Thompson, Esq. VENABLE 750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 244-7704 (410) 244-7638 (410) 528-2842 (410) 244-7400 (410) 244-7605 - and - Lisa C. Dykstra, Esq. R. Brendan Fee, Esq. Zachary M. Johns, Esq. Margaret E. Rodgers Schmidt, Esq. Eric W. Sitarchuk, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 2222 Market Street, 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5699 (215) 963-5136 (215) 963-5340 (215) 963-5163 (215) 963-5840 - and - Eyitayo St. Matthew-Daniel, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-7156 - and - Scott A. Stempel, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800 North Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-5211 MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Babcock Appeals Claims Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY BABCOCK is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Catherine Cole, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Montana University System, et al., Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The Plaintiffs filed this action alleging breach of contract claims and claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq. against the Montana University System (MUS) and the University of Montana. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed competing motions, in support of class certification, and to deny class certification, respectively, in the fall of 2022. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to deny class certification and denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on October 3, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 6, 2023, in which they seek to add Jackie Hedtke and Laura John as Plaintiffs. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the claims of Hedtke and John. The Defendants argue that their claims fall outside the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend their third amended complaint and a motion to continue scheduling order dates. On July 28, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Brian Morris on Oct. 23, 2023. The Court agrees with the Defendants' arguments. The claims of Plaintiffs Babcock and Berkhouse were dismissed. The appellate case is captioned Babcock v. Montana University System, et al., Case No. 23-3794, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 28, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 4, 2023; -- Appellant Transcript Due is due on January 8, 2024; -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on February 14, 2024; and -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on March 15, 2024. [BN] NATIONAL RIFLE: Crawford Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA CRAWFORD is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Patricia Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00903-SPL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. On Sept. 11, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Steven P. Logan on Nov. 6, 2023. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. In sum, the Court found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Defendant, both in Count I under Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and Count II under Sec. 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice as well, as the Plaintiff cannot possibly cure the deficiencies of those claims by the allegation of other facts. Leave to amend was, therefore, deemed inappropriate. The appellate case is captioned Crawford v. National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund, Case No. 23-3830, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 29, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 4, 2023; -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on January 8, 2024; and -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on February 7, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA CRAWFORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jon Phelps, Esq. PHELPS & MOORE, PLLC 6424 E. Greenway Parkway, Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 NEW YORK, NY: Caldwell Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Fire Inspectors ---------------------------------------------------------------- GARY CALDWELL, AFUWAPE ABOLADE, BARBARA ABRAMSON, OPEYEMI AFOLAYAN, TUNDE AKINDUTI, FESTUS AKINRODOYE, ZIMARO ALI, MARITZA ARBOLEDA, ANGEL AYALA, TAGENARINE BALGOBIN, STEVEN BERAS, MICHAEL BEROLATTI, RICHARD BLAKE, RICHARD BONI, ANIROOD BUDHOO, MICHAEL CHIN, SHIBLI CHOWDHURY, ILIR COBAJ, CHRISTOPHER CREARY, DOMINICK CRESCENZO, MICHAEL CRUZ, JOHN DALY, RONALD EVELYN, ROBERT FANTAUZZI, SHAUN FEATHERSTONE, and GEORGE FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK and THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10730 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked, failure to properly calculate the regular rate of pay, and failure to pay overtime in a timely manner. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendants who work or have worked in the position of fire inspector in the New York City Fire Department. The City of New York is a juridical entity, with a principal office and place of business located at Broadway and Park Row, New York, New York. The Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) is an administrative division of New York City. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Sara L. Faulman, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Sophia Serrao, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com slf@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com ss@mselaborlaw.com NEW YORK: Bianculli Files Appeal in N.Y. Appellate Division ----------------------------------------------------------- MARGARETANN BIANCULLI, et al. filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Margaretann Bianculli, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of New York Office of Labor Relations, et al., Defendants, Case No. 160234/2022, in the lower court of New York. The case type is stated as Civil Action - General. The appellate case is captioned Margaretann Bianculli, et al. vs. City of New York Office of Labor Relations et al., Case No. 23-06096, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on November 27, 2023. [BN] NEWKIRK LOGISTICS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Dishmon Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAQUICA DISHMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWKIRK LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02708-B (N.D. Tex., December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was an intrastate delivery driver employee of the Defendant at 750 North Royal Lane, Suite 200, DFW Airport, Texas, within the last three years and through approximately July of 2023. Newkirk Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company in Dallas County, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Serrano, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 346-5909 Facsimile: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com OPTIMA FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abreu Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER ABREU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTIMA FOODS, INC.; DEMETRIOS HADZIPOLIHRONIS; and KONSTANTINOS MASTORAS, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09000 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Abreu was employed by the Defendants as a driver. OPTIMA FOODS, INC. provides food products. The Company offers bakery products, beans, rice, candies, canned goods, cheese products, coffee, and other food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C. 66 Split Rock Road Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone:(516) 634-6340 Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com ORAL ESSENTIALS: Faces Shafee Suit Over Whitening Strips' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marwan Shafee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oral Essentials, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08788 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendant markets its products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting that its Lumineux Whitening Strips are able to whiten teeth within "30 Minutes" of a single application. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant deliberately lied to consumers about the products' efficacy without any evidence to support its claims. In fact, the scant scientific studies that Defendant possesses, as well as ample feedback from dissatisfied consumers, demonstrate that the products fail to noticeably whiten teeth after a single 30-minute application. To make matters worse, the products' poor design makes them fall off consumers' teeth well before the recommended 30-minute treatment. According to the Plaintiff, the products did not whiten his teeth after a single 30-minute application or reliably adhere to his teeth for the recommended 30-minute treatment. After receiving his first shipment of the 7 treatment product, for example, Plaintiff Shafee had to discard multiple whitening strips because they peeled off from his teeth within a few minutes after applying them. Furthermore, the few strips that managed to stay on his teeth for 30 minutes, failed to whiten his teeth as promised on the products' packaging. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff proceeded to purchase the 7 treatment product again a week later but encountered the same issues as he did before, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiff ended up having to throw away most of the products' strips due to their poor adhesion and was unable to reap the benefit of noticeably whiter teeth Altogether. The Defendant's misleading and deceptive practices proximately caused harm to the Plaintiff and the proposed class members who suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of the Defendant's deceptive conduct, the suit claims. The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's products for his personal use online, with his most recent purchases taking place on November of 2023. The Plaintiff made these purchases from Amazon.com while residing in Brooklyn, New York. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and/or sells Lumineux Whitening Strips throughout the United States, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com OREGON: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Children in Foster Care --------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Frost of OPB reports that Oregon and its child welfare system have been in and out of court since 2019, defending against a class action lawsuit on behalf of every child in foster care. The national advocacy group A Better Childhood and Disability Rights Oregon are pushing for adequate facilities and support and an end to the trauma they say kids suffer in state custody. Similar class action lawsuits have been brought in other states, including Tennessee, which implemented reforms following a settlement that resulted in improved outcomes for the children and youth in its care. A trial date is set for next year in the Oregon case, and another round of settlement talks is scheduled for next week. We'll get an update from the lead attorney in the case and the director of A Better Childhood, Marcia Robinson Lowry. [GN] PAPA JOHN'S: Jones Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------- ANN JONES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Ann Jones, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Papa John's International, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00023-SRC, in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Missouri. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging Papa John's violation of the Missouri Wiretap Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Stored Communications Act by using session replay code on its website and app to record website and app users' mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, and other electronic communications in real time. The Plaintiffs also bring common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion and trespass-to-chattels claims. On Mar. 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Stephen R. Clark on Oct. 31, 2023. The Court concluded that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Papa John's. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Ann Jones, et al. v. Papa John's International, Case No. 23-3606, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 30, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on January 9, 2024; -- Brief of Appellant Ann Jones and Jane Tenzer is due on January 9, 2024; and -- Appellee Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of Appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANN JONES, et al., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Maureen Kane Berg, Esq. Karen Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL Suite 2200 100 Washington Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 - and - Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL 308 Hutchinson Road Ballwin, MO 63011 Telephone: (314) 541-0317 Defendant-Appellee PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. is represented by: Tanner Cook, Esq. Randal K. Mullendore, Esq. HUSCH & BLACKWELL Suite 1500 8001 Forsyth Boulevard Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 - and - Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 632-4715 - and - Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING Suite 5400 415 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-7078 - and - Taryn Winston, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING One City Center 850 Tenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-5533 POMPEI PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Echevarria Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN C. ECHEVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POMPEI PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT, INC., d/b/a POMPEI PIZZA RESTAURANT; FRANCESCO LAFATA; VINCENZO "DOE"; and GIUSEPPE "DOE", Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09092 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Echevarria was employed by the Defendants as a cook. POMPEI PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT, INC. operates a restaurant located at Rocky Point, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara V. Messina, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: smessina@romerolawny.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Feagins Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICKY FEAGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and CBIZ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13030 (D. Mass., December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within CBIZ's MOVEit Transfer server following a data breach between May 29 and June 5, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Progress Software Corporation is a software company based in Massachusetts. CBIZ, Inc. is a professional business services provider, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Shahbazian Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARAYIK SHAHBAZIAN and MIKE SPANOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-12903 (D. Mass., Nov. 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to secure consumers' PII from the data breach concerning Progress's MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud software. As of August 2023, the data breach has affected more than 600 organizations and over 40 million people. The compromised PII includes individuals' Social Security Numbers; dates of birth; driver's license/state identification numbers; taxpayer identification numbers; student identification numbers; medical information (e.g., diagnosis, treatment type, admission date); health insurance information; and billing/claim information. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all similarly situated consumers harmed by the 2022 Data Breach, assert claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, violation of California Unfair Competition Law and violation of California Customer Records Act and seek compensatory damages, including restitution and disgorgement, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. As a result of the Defendant's negligence and negligence per se, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and will suffer injury, including actual identity theft, loss of the opportunity of how their PII and financial information is used, the compromise, publication, and/or theft of their PII and financial information, and out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII and financial information. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer other forms of injury and/or harm, including anxiety, emotional distress, loss of privacy, and other economic and non-economic losses, says the suit. Plaintiff Shahbazian is a citizen and resident of the State of California. Progress obtained the Plaintiff Shahbazian's PII through Progress's customer, Vio Bank, which is a division of MidFirst Bank Corporation, a federally chartered savings association. Progress is a provider of products to develop, deploy and manage high-impact business applications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 101 Federal Street | 19th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 203-8459 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW | Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com RAMON LOPEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguirre Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAMON LOPEZ CONSTRUCTION CORP.; and RAMON LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09012 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Aguirre was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker. RAMON LOPEZ CONSTRUCTION CORP. operates in the construction industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 RECKITT BENCKISER: Taylor Sues Over Honey Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-08783 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2023) seeks to redress the Defendant's false and misleading marketing campaign in which four Mucinex branded, non-prescription liquid cold and cough medicine products are marketed as though they contain honey. The Defendant's product packaging is replete with honey-based imagery and words including: a honey dripper dripping honey over a honeycomb; a swirling liquid honey background; Mucinex's cartoon "Mr. Mucus" green monster character, dressed in a yellow and black honeybee colored shirt; holding a honey dripper dripping honey; surrounded by honeybees. The list of inactive ingredients in the Adult Mucinex Honey Products does not include honey, which the Defendant would be required by law to list if those products contained honey. They do not contain honey. Honey is not listed as one of the inactive ingredients in the Children Mucinex Honey Products because those products also do not contain honey, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by and have suffered losses as a result of the Defendant's violations of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law. By virtue of the foregoing unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been substantially injured by purchasing and/or overpaying for a product that is not what Defendant represents it to be. The Plaintiff purchased one of the Mucinex Honey Products, namely the Mucinex Fast-Max Chest Congestion Honey & Berry Flavor product, at a Stop & Shop supermarket near her home in Queens, New York in May 2023. The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes various consumer non-prescription drugs in New York and throughout the United States, including drugs for cold, flu, cough, congestion, and related symptoms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Denlea, Esq. Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. Steven R. Schoenfeld, Esq. Stan Sharovskiy, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 331-0100 Facsimile: (914) 331-0105 E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com jcarton@denleacarton.com sschoenfeld@denleacarton.com ssharovskiy@denleacarton.com REPUBLICAN NATIONAL: Howard Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB HOWARD is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Jacob Howard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Republican National Committee, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00993-SPL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. On Aug. 24, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Steven P. Logan on Nov. 6, 2023. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. In sum, the Court found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Defendant, both in Count I under Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and Count II under Sec. 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice as well, as the Plaintiff cannot possibly cure the deficiencies of those claims by the allegation of other facts. Leave to amend was, therefore, deemed inappropriate. The appellate case is captioned Howard v. Republican National Committee, Case No. 23-3826, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 29, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 4, 2023; -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on January 8, 2024; and -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on February 7, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JACOB HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jon Phelps, Esq. PHELPS & MOORE, PLLC 6424 E. Greenway Parkway, Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 SENIOR SOLUTIONS: Franks Suit Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- TRESA JUNE FRANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENIOR SOLUTIONS AT HOME, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01261-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Franks has been employed by the Defendant as a caregiver in Hardin County, Tennessee. Senior Solutions at Home, Inc., is a provider of senior home care, companion care and veteran care services, with its headquarters at 209 Ward Circle, Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com SIKA AG: 570 Concrete Sues Over Concrete Mixtures Monopoly ---------------------------------------------------------- 570 CONCRETE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINTGOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; and RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04845 (E.D., Pa. Dec. 7, 2023) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in 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"). The 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 (the "Class Period"). The Defendants' scheme included both price increases and the imposition of surcharges on CCAs sold in the United States. By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher prices for CCAs than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants' illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy and, as a result, have suffered damages, says the suit. SIKA AG manufactures construction materials. The Company produces concrete and mixtures, mortar, sealants and adhesives, tooling resins, anti-static industrial flooring, and acoustic materials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 Facsimile: (267) 507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com - and - Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq. CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C. 730 Main Street Moosic, PA 18507 Telephone: (570) 342-9999 Facsimile: (570)457-1533 Email: jmariotti@caputomariotti.com - and - Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 854-4060 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Marc H. Edelson EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Eric L. Cramer Patrick F. Madden Michaela L. Wallin BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net mwallin@bm.net SILVER CINEMAS: Osheske Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- PAUL OSHESKE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Paul Osheske, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-09463-HDV-JC, in the U.S. District Court for Central the District of California. The case type is stated as Civil, Private. On Mar. 8, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Hernan D. Vera on Oct. 31, 2023. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The appellate case is captioned Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Company, Case No. 23-3882, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 30, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 5, 2023; -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on January 12, 2024; and -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on February 12, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PAUL OSHESKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sophia Marie Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 401 B Street, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Defendant-Appellee SILVER CINEMAS ACQUISITION COMPANY is represented by: Teresa Carey Chow, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 STABLE ROAD: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Dec. 18 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Stable Road Acquisition Corp. ("SRAC") publicly traded units, publicly traded SRAC Class A common stock, and publicly traded SRAC warrants: SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Stable Road Acquisition Corp. ("SRAC") units, publicly traded SRAC Class A common stock, and publicly traded SRAC warrants between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")1 : PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that the litigation captioned In re Stable Road Acquisition Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-CV-5744-JFW(SHKx) (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $8,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on April 22, 2024 at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable John F. Walter at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, United States Courthouse, Courtroom 7A, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Stable Road Acquisition Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, 1-866-274-4004. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.StableRoadSecurities.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or online no later than April 5, 2024 to the Claims Administrator. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than April 1, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 1, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Stable Road Acquisition Corp., or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (888) 773-9224 settlements@glancylaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re Stable Road Acquisition Corp. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 (866) 274-4004 www.StableRoadSecuritiesSettlement.com By Order of the Court 1 All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated August 18, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), which is available at www.StableRoadSecurities.com. UNION PACIFIC: Files Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jocelyn Schifferdecker of Kake.com 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] UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal AI Programs ----------------------------------------------------------- Sara E. Teller of Legal Reader reports that in a groundbreaking legal move, a potential class action lawsuit has been filed against the nation's largest insurer, accusing it of illegally leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) programs to override medical professionals' decisions. In doing so, the defendant is allegedly forcing seniors from nursing homes. The case alleges that UnitedHealthcare, the defendant in question, used its nH Predict AI Model to terminate post-acute care coverage for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, leading to a potential class that could include tens of thousands of plaintiffs with damages claims reaching billions of dollars. The lawsuit, brought by the estates of Gene B. Lokken and Dale Henry Tetzloff, sheds light on the abrupt termination of their skilled nursing care coverage just days into their stays. Despite doctors advocating for further in-patient services, both appeals were denied, compelling the families to cover months of continued care out-of-pocket until the seniors' unfortunate demise earlier this year. According to court documents filed in the US District Court in Minnesota, the attorneys argue that UnitedHealthcare's use of AI to determine coverage needs constitutes a breach of fiduciary duties, including good faith and fair dealing. The lawsuit contends that the insurer allowed its AI model to wholly determine coverage requirements, prioritizing its economic interests over those of the insureds. This legal action comes amid growing scrutiny of insurers employing AI in decision-making processes. Congress has addressed denial patterns, with STAT News unveiling investigations into the issue. Former UnitedHealthcare employees cited algorithm-based calculations influencing claims denials, even in cases involving seriously ill patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken steps to limit how Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers deny care, but these changes won't take effect until January 1. Critics remain uncertain about the efficacy of the updated MA rule in prompting real change. The recent lawsuit seeks to impact UnitedHealthcare financially, alleging a fraudulent scheme that benefits the insurer while prematurely displacing elderly individuals from care facilities or forcing them to deplete family savings to continue necessary medical care. The legal document argues that the insurer's AI model, by disagreeing with real-life doctors' determinations, provides a financial windfall for UnitedHealthcare. This occurs through policy premiums without the corresponding fulfillment of promised care. The plaintiffs' lawyers emphasize that the elderly are bearing the brunt of this alleged fraudulent scheme, experiencing premature discharges from care facilities or exhausting savings due to the insurer's reliance on an AI model that overrides medical professionals' decisions. The lawsuit accuses UnitedHealthcare of systematically denying claims using its AI model, knowing that a majority of policy holders won't be appealing their denied claims. It was argued by the plaintiffs that most of these policy holders will bear out-of-pocket costs or sacrifice the remainder of their prescribed post-acute care due to impaired conditions, lack of knowledge, and limited resources to contest the AI-powered decisions. UnitedHealthcare, with health insurance plans covering 52.9 million Americans, has yet to respond to the latest legal action concerning forcing seniors from nursing homes, maintaining its previous stance that the case lacks merit. The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications, potentially reshaping the use of AI in insurance decision-making and its impact on vulnerable populations. [GN] UP FAITH: Tejon Sues Over Unwanted Disclosure of Users' Video Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROGER TEJON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UP FAITH & FAMILY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24660 (S.D. Fla., December 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing habits of the visitors to its website, www.upfaithandfamily.com, without consent. The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided to it by Facebook. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on the Defendant's website and reported their viewing history to Facebook along with their unique Facebook Identification numbers. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit. Up Faith & Family, LLC is a video tape service provider, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW. P.A. 515 E. las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that Zeroed-In Technologies is facing a class action lawsuit claiming it did not do enough to prevent a data breach that impacted more than 1.9 million individuals including employees and clients of Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. Zeroed-In is a cloud-based human resource analytics platform that collects, analyzes and visualizes workforce data while collecting information from those who applied for work at Zeroed-In or its client Dollar Tree, which owns Family Dollar. Zeroed-In reported on Nov. 27 that it had found unusual activity on its servers on Aug. 8 and launched an investigation that found that sensitive information of employees and clients of Dollar Tree and Family Dollar had been accessed by an unauthorized person, the lawsuit claims. The data access included the names, dates of birth, and/or Social Security numbers of 1.977 million individuals. "Zeroed-In provided limited details about the Data Breach, including whether or not the cybercriminal(s) responsible for breach were identified or whether the information exfiltrated was held for ransom," the Dollar Tree class action lawsuit says. "Zeroed-In also did not disclose whether its investigation detected the compromised information on the dark web." Zeroed-In offered Single Bureau Credit Monitoring to individuals but the class action claims that the offer is woefully inadequate related to the damage done. Family Dollar agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that its distribution center in Arkansas was infested with rodents, resulting in contaminated products. Were you impacted by the Dollar Tree data breach? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Jeff Ostrow of Kopelwitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert along with Tina Wolfson and Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot and Wolfson PC. The Dollar Tree data breach class action lawsuit is Biles v. Zeroed-In Technologies LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01139, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***