/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231228.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 28, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 260 Headlines 1832 ASSET: Ontario Court Certifies Trailer-Fee Class Action 236 PROSPECT MARKET: Gonzales Sues Over Market Staff's Unpaid Wages 23ANDME HOLDING: B.C. Supreme Court Grants Representation Order 3M COMPANY: Killings Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. AARP: Must Face Video Privacy Class Action in California ACRISURE LLC: Wooley Sues Over Failure to Protect Information AETNA MEDICAID: Palmer FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Arizona AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Competition Law AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ARIETIS HEALTH: Gentry Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ARIETIS HEALTH: Seidner Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ARIETIS HEALTH: Sligh Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ARIETIS HEALTH: Zeigler Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts BANKERS HEALTHCARE: Thuthija Sues Over Deceptive Commercial Loans BDT CAPITAL: Costner Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. BLUEFIELD UNIVERSITY: Beer Files Suit in S.D. New York BOUDIN BAKERIES: Oizarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Suit Removed to D. Columbia BREDA INC: Saunders Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BUCKLE INC: Sornoso Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wage CANADA: Murphy Battista Obtains Certification Order in PHSA Case CAPTEK SOFTGEL: Huerta Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for General Workers CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Hazlett Files Suit in D. Arizona CBE GROUP INC: Felberbaum Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 29 CHEMOURS COMPANY: Wilcoxen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CME GROUP: Class Action Poses Threat to Membership Market CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Court Certifies Prison Racism Class Action DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Muns Hits Manufactured Home Lot Price-fixing EXXON MOBIL: Faces Class Action Over FACTA Violation EZRICARE LLC: Lubricant Eye Drops Contain Bacteria, Roberts Says FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California FIRST BANCSHARES: Hall Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi FITZGERALD JEWELRY: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FORD MOTOR: Soehnlein Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts FULLERTON CHICKEN: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Fingerprint Scans GARNEA LLC: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GBNY PRODUCTIONS: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Kinnally Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GOLDEN HEAVEN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 20 GOOGLE LLC: Brodies LLP Attorneys Discuss UK Class Action GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Reddy Declaration GOOGLE LLC: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $700MM HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces Bhangal Securities Suit Over Disclosure HD SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Santiago Suit Claims HERITAGE CARE: Court Refuses to Order Discovery of Insurance Docs HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $8.73MM IANTHUS CAPITAL: February 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set IOOF: Judge Tosses Shareholders' Class Action JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tylenol Class Actions Pending in Courts KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Okays $11.6MM Deal in Debit Cards Suit LIDO DAO: Faces Class Action in California Over LDO Token LOVESAC CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 20 MENARD INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 25, 2024 META PLATFORMS: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action Over Job Ads METHODE ELECTRONICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims MGS MFG GROUP: Hunt Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action NEW JERSEY: Edna Mahan Class Action Settlements Fall Short NORTON HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack NY AND CO: Mitchell Sues Over Unlawful Pricing, Sales Practices PBM SUPPLY: Faces Obrien Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices PORNHUB: Judge Certifies Child Sexual Abuse Victim's Class Action PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Oguin Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts PROGRESSIVE AUTO: Must Face Class Action Over Vehicle Valuation PROGRESSIVE GULF: Wright Sues Over Failure to Return Deductible RANCHO ESQUON: Faces Mathis Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. RCI LLC: Stone Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia RE/MAX LLC: Settles Burnett Class Action RE/MAX LLC: Settles Moehrl Class Action RE/MAX LLC: Settles Nosalek Class Action ROCKET MORTGAGE: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona SALEM COMMUNITY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Pizana Suit Transferred to D. Utah SANTANDER BANK: Almanzar Files Suit in S.D. New York SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY: Frazier Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages SOUTHEAST QSR: Maddox Files ADA Suit in S.D. Georgia SPOILEDCHILD INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York T-MOBILE USA: Violates Consumers' Right to Free Speech, Juarez Says TUFT AND NEEDLE: Licea CIPA Suit Removed to C.D. California TW SERVICES: Ewing Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices UNITED STATES: Tucker Files Suit in S.D. Illinois UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Misleading Medicare Ads USHEALTH ADVISORS: Human TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida VACO LLC: Montenegro Alleges Misclassification, Failure to Pay OT VALLEY NATIONAL: White Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts WESTLAKE, OH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hamilton et al. Say YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Tenant Screening Report YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website [*] 6th Cir. Strikes Down Class Certification Order in PFAS Suit ********* 1832 ASSET: Ontario Court Certifies Trailer-Fee Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that another class action against a fund manager over the allegedly improper payment of trailer commissions to discount brokers has been certified in Ontario. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class action against 1832 Asset Management L.P., a subsidiary of The Bank of Nova Scotia. According to the claim, investors were harmed by the improper payment of trailers, ostensibly for advice, which discount brokers are prohibited from providing under the limitations of their registration. "The plaintiff alleges that the trailing commissions are improper, unreasonable and unjustified, and were paid by the defendant in breach of its duties to the class members who held those mutual funds," the court noted in its decision. The allegations have not been proven. The case against 1832 Asset Management is one of a series of class actions that have been filed against fund managers over the payment of trailers to discounters, and a couple of those have already been certified. In this case, the court largely adopted the reasoning used for certifying cases against TD Asset Management Inc. and BMO Investments Inc. It determined that the case was suitable as a class action in that it sets out a potentially viable claim, and that there are common facts that apply to a group of investors. The only issue was whether the proposed plaintiff in the case was suitable to take on the class action on behalf of affected investors. And, the court concluded that this criterion was met too. [GN] 236 PROSPECT MARKET: Gonzales Sues Over Market Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 236 PROSPECT MARKET LLC (DBA PROSPECT MARKET), MUSLEH ALOMARI and ALEXANDER ALOMARI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09403 (E.D.N.Y., December 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at 236 Prospect Park W, Brooklyn, New York, from approximately 2018 until October 9, 2022. His duties included stocking and unpacking produce, customer service and cleaning. 236 Prospect Market LLC is a market owner and operator in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 23ANDME HOLDING: B.C. Supreme Court Grants Representation Order --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of British Columbia has granted a Representation Order subject to proposed class proceedings brought in the matter of J. R. v 23andMe Holding Co et al, Vancouver Registry, S-237147. This class action has been brought on behalf of a proposed Class comprising of all Canadian customers of 23andMe who were affected by the data breach reported by the company in October 2023 ("Class"), excluding certain individuals affiliated with the Defendants. Pursuant to the Representation Order, the plaintiff has been appointed as the Representative Plaintiff and KND Complex Litigation and YLAW Group have been appointed as Representative Counsel to address any issues arising from the implementation, construction or interpretation of the Defendants' Terms of Service dated November 30, 2023 and its successors. 23andMe's Terms of Service dated November 30, 2023 include provisions for alternative dispute resolution and individual arbitration procedures and a class action waiver, and require that customers opt out if they wish to not be bound by those terms. Pursuant to the Representation Order, Representative Plaintiff and Representative Counsel are empowered to address those issues on behalf of putative members of this class action. Pursuant to the terms of the Representation Order: 1. The Representation Order is without prejudice to, and it does not amount to any form of compromise or derogation of, the Defendants' rights or arguments, including that the proceeding should not proceed as a class action or at all; and 2. The Representation Order shall be null and shall have no effect on any person who opts out from this class proceeding by written email to sn@knd.law, and/or in the event that this action is not certified under the Class Proceedings Act of British Columbia. More information concerning this class action and a copy of the Court's Representation Order are available on Representative Counsel's website at https://knd.law/class-actions/23-and-me/. For further information: Inquiries: KND Complex Litigation, contact@knd.law [GN] 3M COMPANY: Killings Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LEMUEL KILLINGS JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-904186, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on December 19, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01718-AMM to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendants, including 3M, have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) products and/or fluorinated surfactants used therein, which contain polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and/or their precursors. The Plaintiffs claim that they suffered injury as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or firefighter turnout gear (TOG) products. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods, headquartered in Minnesota. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com AARP: Must Face Video Privacy Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------------- Gina Kim, writing for Law360, reports that AARP customers survived a dismissal bid in a putative class action alleging the nonprofit illegally shares their identities and video viewing activities with Meta after a California judge said their amended pleading describes the significant role video content plays in AARP's operations under the Video Privacy Protection Action. [GN] ACRISURE LLC: Wooley Sues Over Failure to Protect Information ------------------------------------------------------------- Erika Wooley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ACRISURE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01293 (W.D. Mich., Dec. 11, 2023), is brought against the Defendants failure to adequately protect consumers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach. Between January December 1, 2022, and January 28, 2023, Acrisure control over its computer network and the highly private information stored on the computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). The Data Breach's impact has impacted thousands of consumers. Acrisure's breach differs from typical data breaches because it affects consumers who had no relationship with Acrisure, never sought one, and never consented to Acrisure's collecting and storing their information. On information and belief Data Breach first began December 1, 2022, and was allowed by Defendant to continue until January 28, 2023, providing cybercriminals unfettered access to consumers' highly private information for an appalling fifty-eight days. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to consumers' personally identifiable information ("PII") and private health information ("PHI") (collectively with PII, "Sensitive Information"). Cybercriminals bypassed Defendant's inadequate security systems to access consumers' Sensitive Information in its computer systems. On November 10, 2023, Acrisure finally notified State Attorneys General and many Class Members about the widespread Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). However, notice is ongoing, with Plaintiff not receiving her notice until December 6, 2023. The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted—refusing to tell its victims how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took the Defendant almost a year to begin notifying victims that hackers had gained access to highly private Sensitive Information. The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of Sensitive Information misuse. In failing to adequately protect consumers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, receiving Acrisure's Breach Notice on December 6, 2023. Acrisure is a financial technology and insurance company headquartered 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 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com AETNA MEDICAID: Palmer FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Crystal Palmer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aetna Medicaid Administrators LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01010 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02547-DWL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Aetna Medicaid -- https://www.aetnabetterhealth.com/ -- is a Medicaid managed care organization focused on improving health outcomes for those we serve.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq. CONNOR & MORNEAU LLP 273 State St., Ste. 2 Springfield, MA 01103 Phone: (413) 455-1730 Fax: (413) 455-1594 - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ 1 Towne Sq., 17th Fl. Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Fax: (248) 746-4001 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Michael McKinley, Esq. James J. Swartz, Jr., Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP - ATLANTA - 1075 PEACHTREE 1075 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3962 Phone: (404) 704-9665 - and - Anthony S. Califano, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP - BOSTON, MA 2 Seaport Lane, Ste. 300 Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 946-4925 Fax: (617) 946-4800 - and - Jill Johnson Chasson, Esq. Kent S Brockelman, Esq. COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 381-5481 Fax: (602) 224-6020 Email: JChasson@cblawyers.com kbrockelman@cblawyers.com AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Competition Law --------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Dourou, writing for Law360, reports that two proposed class representatives urged Britain's antitrust tribunal on Dec. 20 to choose which is better suited to bring a class action against Amazon over alleged favoring by the technology giant of its own product offers in breach of competition law.[GN] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- MONAY JONES, an individual, and MATTHEW RIDGWAY, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-06211 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for wage and labor violations arising from its failure to pay wages for all time worked, failure to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods, failure to provide reporting time pay, and for derivative claims pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in two of Defendant's facilities in Santa Clarita and Valencia, California, from approximately March 2022 to approximately October 2022, as a seasonal warehouse associate. Amazon.com Services, LLC provides e-commerce services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Lisa Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 203 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com ARIETIS HEALTH: Gentry Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Charles Gentry, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arietis Health, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00926 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13019-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com - and - Joshua Robert Jacobson, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Phone: (407) 488-8291 Email: JJacobson@normandpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1152 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 339-8533 Email: dszego@orrick.com ARIETIS HEALTH: Seidner Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Kevan Seidner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arietis Health, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00944 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13020-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com The Defendants are represented by: Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1152 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 339-8533 Email: dszego@orrick.com ARIETIS HEALTH: Sligh Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gina Sligh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arietis Health, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00890 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13026-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com - and - Joshua Robert Jacobson, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Phone: (407) 488-8291 Email: JJacobson@normandpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1152 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 339-8533 Email: dszego@orrick.com ARIETIS HEALTH: Zeigler Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Robbin Zeigler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arietis Health, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00919 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13018-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Federal Trade Commission Act. Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Kevin Lewis, Esq. KL LAW, P.L.L.C. 150 S. Pine Island Rd., Suite 300 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 551-2295 Email: service@kevinlewislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1152 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 339-8533 Email: dszego@orrick.com BANKERS HEALTHCARE: Thuthija Sues Over Deceptive Commercial Loans ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAJESH THUTHIJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANKERS HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02453-DDP-SP (C.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Truth in Lending Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law. The suit challenges Defendant's practice of deceptive and misleading representations and/or omissions and BHG's business practice of extending millions of dollars in consumer loans to Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers, while falsely disguising those consumer loans as "commercial loans" made to businesses that do not exist. BHG's purpose in falsely disguising many of its consumer loans as "commercial loans" is to bolster its revenues and evade certain licensing and disclosure requirements that federal and state laws impose upon consumer lenders, says the suit. Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC is a financial lender that regularly makes loans to businesses and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com BDT CAPITAL: Costner Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BDT Capital Partners, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Randall Costner, George Assad, and Jonathan Abbott, and others similarly situated v. BDT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, BYRON D. TROTT, MAD PRIVATE FAMILY TRUST COMPANY LLC, KELLY D. RAINKO, MARTIN MCCOURT, ELLIOTT HILL, MELINDA R. RICH, JAMES C. STEPHEN, and SUSAN T. CONGALTON, Case No. 2023-1234-KSJM (Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 11, 2023). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." BDT Capital Partners -- https://bdtmsd.com/ -- is a private equity arm of BDT & Company that specializes in investments in family-owned and entrepreneurial businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine Mackintosh, Esq. Phone: (302) 622-7000 Fax: (302) 622-7100 - and - Rebecca Musarra, Esq. Phone: (302) 622-7000 Fax: (302) 622-7100 - and - Corinne Elise Amato, Esq. Phone: (302) 888-6500 Fax: (302) 658-8111 - and - Kevin Davenport, Esq. Phone: (302) 888-6500 Fax: (302) 658-8111 - and - Eric J. Juray, Esq. Phone: (302) 888-6500 Fax: (302) 658-8111 - and - Stacey A. Greenspan, Esq. Phone: (302) 888-6500 Fax: (302) 658-8111 BLUEFIELD UNIVERSITY: Beer Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluefield University. The case is styled as Kyle Beer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bluefield University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00055-JPJ-PMS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Bluefield University -- https://www.bluefield.edu/ -- is a private Baptist university in Bluefield, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Email: craig@clalegal.com BOUDIN BAKERIES: Oizarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boudin Bakeries, Inc. The case is styled as Romano Oizarro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Boudin Bakeries, Inc., Andre-Boudin Bakeries, Inc., Boudin Holdings, Inc., Boudin IP, Inc., Case No. CGC23610949 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 8, 2023). The case type is stated as "Civil Rights." Boudin Bakery -- https://www.boudinbakery.com/ -- is a bakery based in San Francisco, California, known for its sourdough bread.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH LLC 333 E City Ave., Ste. 805 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1515 Phone: 610-667-6200 Fax: 610-667-9029 Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Suit Removed to D. Columbia --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Laura Hettinger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bozzuto Management Company, Case No. 2023-CAB007375 was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 11, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute. The Bozzuto Group -- https://www.bozzuto.com/ -- is a real estate company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Simplicio, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Email: ksimplicio@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Christina Araviakis, Esq. James D. Bragdon, Esq. GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES 218 N. Charles Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 951-1410 Email: caraviakis@gejlaw.com jbragdon@gejlaw.com BREDA INC: Saunders Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Breda, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Saunders, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Breda, Inc. doing business as Bredabeds, Case No. 1:23-cv-10690 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Breda, Inc. doing business as BredaBeds -- https://bredabeds.com/ -- manufactures and sells innovative space-saving bed products such as modern Murphy Beds (also known as Wall Beds).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bennitta Lisa Joseph, Esq. Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 406-6890 Email: bennittaj@gmail.com jon@norinsberglaw.com BUCKLE INC: Sornoso Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wage ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ellena Sornoso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE BUCKLE, INC., a Nebraska Corporation, and Does 1-20, Case No. 23CV03464 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., Dec. 11, 2023), is brought for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse for business expenses, failure to keep accurate time records, failure to timely pay wages at termination, and derivative civil penalties. Plaintiff seeks these damages and penalties, plus interest and attorney's fees, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked for Defendant as a non-exempt employee. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with meal and rest periods, failed to pay minimum wages and premium overtime wages, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to keep accurate time records, failed to timely pay final wages, and failed to reimburse for business expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq. Lisa L. Bradner, Esq. Daniel E. Richardson, Esq. CASTLE LAW: CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL, PC 2999 Douglas Blvd, Suite 180 Roseville, CA 95661 Phone: (916) 245-0122 Email: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com lb@castleemploymentlaw.com dr@castleemploymentlaw.com CANADA: Murphy Battista Obtains Certification Order in PHSA Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A team of lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP, led by Scott Stanley and John Cameron along with a team from Slater Vecchio LLP were successful in obtaining an order for certification of a class action against the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) on behalf of patients who received procedures at BC Women's Hospital and Health Centre (BCWH) during 2020 and 2021. The certification order allows the Plaintiff to pursue the following common issues: violation of privacy, vicarious liability, and punitive damages. The class action arises from the alleged involvement of Brigitte Cleroux, an individual believed to be an unlicensed nurse, in the provision of nursing care to approximately 1,150 patients who attended for gynecological surgical procedures during the specified period. PHSA sent out letters to all of those in BC that were treated by Cleroux. If people believe they are included in this action, they are encouraged to reach out to Murphy Battista LLP or Slater Vecchio LLP about their experience. The case is styled in the case styled Massie v. Provincial Health Services Authority, 2023 BCSC 1275. [GN] CAPTEK SOFTGEL: Huerta Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for General Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------ IRMA HUERTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPTEK SOFTGEL INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV31004 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt general worker in their Inspection Department, from approximately 2007 until approximately June 2023. Captek Softgel International, Inc. is an operator of a manufacturing facility for vitamins, minerals, and supplements in Cerritos, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Matthew K. Moen, Esq. Susan J. Perez, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com mmoen@haineslawgroup.com sperez@haineslawgroup.com CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Hazlett Files Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardiovascular Consultants Limited. The case is styled as Brian Hazlett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cardiovascular Consultants Limited, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-JZB (D. Ariz., Dec. 11, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Declaratory Judgment. Cardiovascular Consultants, Ltd. (CVC) -- https://cvcheart.com/ -- offers comprehensive cardiology services at convenient locations found throughout Metro Phoenix.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC 7508 N 59th Ave. Glendale, AZ 85301 Phone: (623) 826-5593 Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com CBE GROUP INC: Felberbaum Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc. The case is styled as Samuel Felberbaum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-10775-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CBE Companies -- https://www.cbecompanies.com/ -- is a global provider of outsourced call center solutions specializing in receivables management, fraud, and customer care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issued this alert to shareholders of ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CHPT), if they purchased the Company's securities between June 1, 2023 and November 16, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until January 29, 2024 to file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit. Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-chpt/, by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com). Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Kuznicki Law PLLC Daniel Kuznicki, Esq. 445 Central Avenue, Suite 344 Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Email: dk@kclasslaw.com Phone: (347) 696-1134 Cell: (347) 690-0692 Fax: (347) 348-0967 https://kclasslaw.com [GN] CHEMOURS COMPANY: Wilcoxen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Wilcoxen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01416-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 11, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Despite clocking in and beginning work that was integral and indispensable to their job duties before the scheduled start of their shifts, Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees for their pre-shift work. Thus, during all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production employees for all overtime work performed because of their policy and/or practice of not paying these employees for pre-shift work. As a result of the Defendants' companywide policies and/or practices, Defendants knew or had reason to know that they were not compensating the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production employees for all overtime pay that they actually earned. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but were not at paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 as a result of Defendants' unlawful policy or practice, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 2018 to 2021. The Chemours Company is a domestic corporation that operates and conducts substantial business activities in the District of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Matthew Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Phone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel C. Herr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL C. HERR LLC 3411 Silverside Road, The Baynard Building Wilmington, DE 19810 Phone: (302)-483-7060 Email: dherr@dherrlaw.com CME GROUP: Class Action Poses Threat to Membership Market --------------------------------------------------------- John Lothian News reports that a long-standing certified class-action lawsuit against CME Group, filed by members of the Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange, poses a potential threat to the exchange group's membership market. A mediated settlement, encouraged by the judge, could reshape how trading rights are offered at the exchange and potentially benefit a class of shareholders, whose B-shares have declined while A-share values rose. However, B-shareholders face a hurdle as CME lawyers will seek to decertify the class-action case in late January 2024 and also seek a summary judgment. The odds of success for CME in the decertification effort are slim, given that most certified class-action lawsuits are not decertified. Regarding summary judgment, it appears that there is a genuine dispute over the definition of a trading floor and related matters within the CBOT and CME core rights. This disagreement makes it unlikely to succeed. As the case nears its conclusion, membership prices still primarily reflect their utility as trading rights rather than their potential value with a settlement. Some believe these memberships are undervalued and have been actively buying them over the past couple of years. It's important to note that not all memberships are part of the class-action case, with firm memberships and those owned by exchange staff excluded. The time period for memberships to be included in the class has passed, meaning one can only join the lawsuit by purchasing a membership without certainty about its inclusion. This situation could lead to the sale of memberships by the estates of long-time CME or CBOT members that include the right to participate in the lawsuit, potentially without the seller's awareness of the lawsuit's value. Corporate members of the CME Group, who leverage single memberships for trading of multiples of traders, may find a resolution of the lawsuit has changed the CME's membership business model, leaving them with higher costs for accessing the markets. "If it (the lawsuit) goes to trial and if you look at the risk to CME, if we win on Aurora being a trading floor, there's the damage number for the value of the exclusivity right that members haven't enjoyed for the past decade," said Steven E. Morrissey, the plaintiffs attorney. "Then there'll be a past damages number for that that's limited to the memberships that are in our class, which are individual memberships, but that number will be in excess of $1 billion in past damages." "And then we'll also seek a declaration that Aurora is a trading floor, which would require CME to deal with the issue going forward as well," he said. Furthermore, the class-action lawsuit may deter Cboe Global Markets from entering negotiations for a potential deal, particularly one involving CME stock. Similar to the Cboe-CBOT trading rights dispute that needed resolution before the CME-CBOT merger, this lawsuit might need to be resolved before any Cboe and CME deal can proceed.The CME Group declined to comment on this story. What this is All About The CMELawSuit.com website says this about the lawsuit: The lawsuit alleges that Defendants CME and CBOT have breached their obligations to the Class B Plaintiffs by denying the Class B Plaintiffs the best and most proximate access to the Globex electronic trading platform at the Aurora Data Center ("ADC"), by denying the Class B Plaintiffs the right to trade the full range of CME products on Globex at member rates, and by requiring the Class B Plaintiffs to pay certain fees for colocation at the ADC. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants violated the Class B Plaintiffs' rights by allowing Electronic Corporate Members and, on information and belief, other non-member customers to exercise the trading rights and privileges of exchange members without purchasing or leasing seats on the exchange, and by providing preferential fees to certain non-member customers. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit, Langer, et al. v. CME Group, Inc., et al., No. 2014 CH 00829, was filed on January 15, 2014 and is currently pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. B-Shares vers. A-Shares Since the launch of the Aurora Data Center ("ADC") by CME, the values of B-shares and A-shares have moved in opposite directions. While CME executives, board and staff receive performance-based rewards in the form of A-shares, the same does not apply to B-shares, according to a CME member. A-shares have surged in value, increasing fivefold since the ADC's launch, while B-shares have plummeted, losing 75% of their value during the same period, as indicated by the member. The trader emphasized the wisdom of purchasing a membership rather than leasing one, considering it among his best decisions. He explained that he might have been one of the numerous individual members who left the industry when faced with several months of trading losses if he had leased a membership. He credited a seasoned trader who once advised him, saying, "A carpenter does not rent his tools." However, with membership prices sagging over the last few years, it has been easy for traders to lease instead of buying a membership, which has made it all too easy for individual traders to walk away when trading results were negative. The judge wants the two sides to come to a mediated solution, rather than leaving it up to a jury unsophisticated in the ways of market structure. Should the decertification and summary judgment efforts of the CME fail this winter and spring, look for this case to move quickly to a mediated solution. The plaintiffs' attorneys specialize in high-stakes cases such as the CME Group's legal battle against members of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. Stephen E. Morrissey, co-lead counsel on the CME case from Susman Godfrey, serves on the Susman executive committee and previously chaired the expert committee in a complex litigation related to the contamination of the Flint, Michigan water distribution system. In that case, Morrissey's team has successfully obtained court-approved settlements valued at $626 million with several governmental defendants, including the state of Michigan. This case might also be influencing the length of CME Group Chairman and CEO Terry Duffy's employment term, which was recently extended until the end of 2025. The CME Group board may not wish to have this lawsuit looming over the head of a new CEO. Ultimately, the mediation is about monetary damages only. Dragging out the resolution of the lawsuit could continue to impact membership prices, legacy members' estates, individual trader retention and could have implications for future negotiations, deals and senior executive employment. [GN] CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Court Certifies Prison Racism Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Fagan, writing for Toronto Star, reports that former inmate Abel Araya says he was in desperate need of medical attention following a serious head injury -- but when he asked his parole officer to call for help, he says she refused. Then, when he took himself for treatment, he says was scolded by staff from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). He should have first consulted his parole officer, he said they told him. This was one incident of many involving alleged neglect, harassment, public shaming and racism that Araya says plagued his time at William Head Institution in British Columbia. Now, Araya is at the centre of a class-action lawsuit against CSC, alleging widespread anti-Black racism within the country's prison system. Certified in a Federal Court decision released on Dec. 19, the class action -- which represents all living current and former Black inmates since April 17, 1985, who say they were subject to physical, emotional, or psychological abuse while incarcerated -- could have massive consequences on Canada's federal prison system. In the lawsuit, Araya alleges that CSC is responsible for "systemic negligence resulting in the abuse of Black inmates" and that the prison system has breached Charter rights to life, liberty, and security, along with equal protections under the law. He is seeking a declaration from the government that the CSC "systemically violated, and continue(s) to violate" these charter rights and payment for damages. If successful, the scale of the class action brings the potential for significant change for Black Canadians involved in the criminal justice system, said Howard Sapers, who extensively documented the experience of Black prisoners during his former career as Canada's correctional investigator. The lawsuit, which he is not involved in, "frustrates and angers me, but it doesn't shock or surprise me," he said, noting about 10 per cent of 13,000 people currently in prison are Black. Lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada argued Araya is not a representative plaintiff, that the claim is "overly broad" and that the class of Black inmates do not share common issues of law or fact. The federal lawyers also argued a class-action lawsuit is not the best way to resolve inmates' claims. Esther Mailhot, a spokesperson for CSC, said it would be "inappropriate to comment on specifics" of the case as it is before the courts. "Once in our custody, we are committed to working hard to address societal systemic barriers for offenders by providing programs and services that address offender's needs," she wrote in a statement. "We are committed to ensuring that Black and ethnocultural offenders are afforded the same protections, dignity and treatment as others, consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Act, and CSC's policies." University of Toronto criminology professor Akwasi Owusu-Bempah presented expert evidence of "CSC's practices, procedures, instruments, policies and other acts and omissions systematically disadvantage racialized prisoners" -- issues he says were brought to CSC's attention in 2013 but did not lead to any meaningful policy or procedure changes. CSC has also not implemented any recommendations in this area made by the Auditor General starting in 2015 and the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights in 2021. Federal Justice Simon Fothergill certified the lawsuit as a class action in a decision released on Dec. 19, finding that Araya is sufficiently credible to act as a representative claimant. Certification is the first major step in a class action, allowing a plaintiff's case to go forward on behalf of a larger group of people. The truth of Araya's allegations has not yet been tested. Araya pleaded guilty in June 2019 to trafficking narcotics. He received a three-year federal sentence, which he began serving at Drumheller Institution in Alberta before he moved to William Head Institution, a minimum security facility in British Columbia, prior to his release in March 2020. It was during his seven weeks at William Head, and after his release, that Araya alleges the "racial abuse" by prison officials and other inmates took place. The class action details several examples of these allegations, including that Araya was "ignored or dismissed" by white prison officers, pressured to leave a halfway house to make room for "more vulnerable prisoners, all of whom were white," and intimidated from filing his complaints regarding racism as formal grievances by CSC officials. In separate instances, he says his parole officer told him she would not want him as a sports coach for her children, as he was "clearly a drug dealer," while another officer told Araya that he "would not like someone like him living in his community." He says in the lawsuit that he was also threatened by a white inmate who directed derogatory racial slurs at him. He alleges prison staff did not intervene until he said he did not want to fight but if the inmate repeated the slurs, he would "have to settle the matter," at which point Araya alleges staff claimed he had threatened the other inmate. That night, Araya says he was removed from his bunkhouse -- which he shared with the other inmate -- and told to go door-to-door to find another bunkhouse to take him in, or risk losing his place at William Head, while the other inmate received no punishment. Since his release, Araya says he has continued to struggle with panic attacks, depression, anxiety and sleepless nights. Rajinder Sahota and Patrick Dudding, lawyers representing Araya in the class action, declined to respond to questions from the Star, saying they were limited in what they could say about a matter currently before the courts. "The plaintiff welcomes the federal court's certification ruling. We view this as the first step toward righting the injustices and mistreatment faced by Black people incarcerated in Federal prisons," Sahota wrote in a statement. "We hope the government of Canada will work with the plaintiff to resolve this matter in a fair and just manner." The court has not yet decided on a timeline for the class action. [GN] DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Muns Hits Manufactured Home Lot Price-fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA M. MUNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DATACOMP APPRAISAL SYSTEMS, INC.; EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.; HOMETOWN AMERICA MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES, INC.; SUN COMMUNITIES, INC.; RHP PROPERTIES, INC.; YES! COMMUNITIES, INC.; INSPIRE COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.; KINGSLEY MANAGEMENT, CORP.; and CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-16450 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 1, 2023) is an antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and a nationwide Class of all similarly situated persons and entities who paid rent for a manufactured home lot located in a manufactured home community that was included in a JLT Market Report between August 31, 2019, and the present. The Plaintiff and members of the Class were injured by paying significant overcharges on manufactured home lot rents throughout the United States in violation of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act and common law. As a result of Defendants' conspiracy, two of society's most vulnerable groups -- the elderly and low-income earners -- face considerable financial pressures. The effect of Defendants' conspiracy has been devasting to manufactured home residents, says the suit. If Defendants are permitted to continue their anticompetitive scheme, Plaintiff and members of the Class will continue to pay supracompetitive rents for manufactured home lots. The Plaintiff brings this action to seek damages and permanently enjoin Defendants' ongoing efforts to coordinate their prices by sharing competitively sensitive information for manufactured home lots. Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc. provides manufactured and mobile home value reports, price information, appraisal reports and inspections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com - and - Michael Moskovitz, Esq. Robert Wozniak, Esq. Nia Barberousse Binns, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State Dr, 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com nbinns@fklmlaw.com - and - William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. Cary Zhang, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC 2001 Market Street Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com czhang@srkattorneys.com EXXON MOBIL: Faces Class Action Over FACTA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that Exxon Mobil is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing too many credit and debit card digits on customer receipts. The suit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of named plaintiff Daniel Quinn and potentially many others throughout the U.S. and Illinois. The lawsuit alleges that Exxon Mobil branded stores knowingly or recklessly failed to comply with FACTA by printing customer receipts displaying the first six and the last four digits of its customers' debit or credit card numbers. This alleged violation has reportedly led to an invasion of privacy for customers, elevated risk of identity theft, loss of control over their card information, and the need to protect their receipt to prevent further disclosure. Quinn argues that due to Exxon Mobil's unlawful conduct, he and other proposed class members are entitled to an award of statutory damages under the FACTA law. Quinn and the class of additional plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Keith J. Keogh and Michael S. Hilicki, of Keogh Law, of Chicago; and attorney Scott D. Owens, of Hollywood, Florida. [GN] EZRICARE LLC: Lubricant Eye Drops Contain Bacteria, Roberts Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EZRICARE, LLC; and EZRIRX, LLC Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-22827 (D.N.J., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff due to Defendants' fraud, false marketing, false advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and breaches of state law consumer protection statutes. This is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated who purchased Defendants' EzriCare Artificial Tears Lubricant Eye Drops product, which was sold to consumers across the United States. The product purchased by Plaintiff and Putative Class members was adulterated and contaminated with a "very rare strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that hasn't been seen in the U.S. before," says the suit. The product is designed to be safe for use in the human eye. Unfortunately, due to the presence of the bacteria, the product is not safe for human use. The Plaintiff and Putative Class members have been deprived of their benefit of the bargain as they intended to purchase safe, healthy, and contaminant free products, the suit asserts. EzriCare, LLC is a pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Furia, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: Furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Brooklee Han, writing for Housing Wire, reports that big Four title firm Fidelity National Financial and its subsidiary mortgage subservicer Loancare are facing a class action lawsuit alleging that they were negligent with customer data and that they breached their contract, after the firm was the victim of a cyber security attack in late-November. The suit was filed on Dec. 12 by Teneika Tillis, a Loancare servicing client, in U.S. District Court for Central California. The complaint states that Tillis filed the suit "upon information and belief" that her personal identifiable information had been comprised in the attack. "The data breach itself and information defendants have disclosed about the breach to date, including its length, the need to remediate defendants' cybersecurity and the sensitive nature of the impacted data, collectively demonstrate defendants failed to implement reasonable measures," the complaint states. In addition, Tillis claims as a result of the data breach the plaintiff class has been "required to continue to undertake time-consuming and oten costly efforts to mitigate the actual and potential harm." The complaint also maintains that Loancare should have notified consumers of inadequate security measures after it reported a data breach around August 2022. "Defendants thus failed to take reasonable measures to secure its system," the lawsuit said. Roughly a week after initially reporting the attack, Fidelity said the incident was contained, however the firm has yet to disclose the type of personal information that may have been acquired by the cyber criminals or the number of clients impacted by the incident. Shortly after the incident, ransomware gang AlphV/BlackCat claimed responsibility. In an online post, AlphV/BlackCat blamed Fidelity for allegedly hiring incident responders from Google's Mandiant unit and threatened to disclose information on data it collected. Tillis is demanding a jury trial and a damages amount that is "equitable relief with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest" to the plaintiff and members of the class. Mr. Cooper, which became the victim of a cyber security attack in late October, is currently facing four class action suits as a result of the attack. [GN] FIRST BANCSHARES: Hall Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The First Bancshares, Inc. The case is styled as Nancy Hall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The First Bancshares, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00192-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., Dec. 7, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The First Bancshares, Inc. -- https://www.thefirstbank.com/ -- operates as the bank holding company for The First Bank that provides general commercial and retail banking services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Winston Hudson, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 372-1300 Email: winston@yourattorney.com FITZGERALD JEWELRY: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitzgerald Jewelry, LLC. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fitzgerald Jewelry, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09005 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fitzgerald Jewelry, LLC -- https://www.fitzgeraldjewelry.com/ -- are a fine jewelry studio and school specializing in custom engagement and wedding rings, unique stones and alternative diamonds, local designers, and workshops in the heart of Williamsburg in Brooklyn, NYC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com FORD MOTOR: Soehnlein Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mark Soehnlein, Teressa Kohman, and Richard Bunger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-09262 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 7, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13013-FDS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Litke, Esq. Mitchell Breit, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 946-9306 Email: tlitke@milberg.com mbreit@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Hector Torres, Esq. Cindy Caranella Kelly, Esq. Stephen Paul Thomasch, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 506-1700 Email: htorres@kasowitz.com ckelly@kasowitz.com sthomasch@kasowitz.com FULLERTON CHICKEN: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Fingerprint Scans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that a Chicago KFC franchisee has been hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing the company of allegedly violating Illinois' biometrics privacy law by requiring workers to scan fingerprints to use point of sale registers and punch the clock. Fullerton Chicken Inc. violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, according to the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court. The law requires companies to obtain a written release before collecting and storing biometric information such as fingerprints, the lawsuit states. Fullerton "required employees, including Plaintiff, to scan their fingerprints on a daily basis by using their fingerprints with the fingerprint scanner so that Defendant could track the number of hours worked," the lawsuit states The company allegedly failed to obtain express written consent from employees when it introduced the biometric system. "Defendant never informed Plaintiffs of the specific purpose and length of time for which their biometric identifiers or information would be collected, stored and used," the suit alleges. "Defendant did not have written, publicly available policies identifying their retention schedules or guidelines for permanently destroying users' biometric identifiers or information." The lawsuit seeks $5,000 for each intentional violation of the law and $1,000 for each negligent violation. Payouts under such lawsuits can quickly climb to what judges and defendants alike have described as "astronomical" levels, after the Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that the BIPA law should be interpreted to define "individual violations" as each time a company scans someone's biometric identifier over a period beginning five years before the lawsuit was filed. When multiplied across entire workforces, potential judgments under BIPA could spiral quickly into many millions of dollars. The Illinois Supreme Court has also repeatedly ruled that plaintiffs don't ever have to actually prove they were harmed by the alleged improper collection of their biometric data to make such payment claims. Attorneys typically claim about one third of such payouts. The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan Richards, of Jordan Richards PLLC, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [GN] GARNEA LLC: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garnea, LLC. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Garnea, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10666-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Garnea, LLC doing business as Wella Foods -- https://wellafoods.com/ -- is the maker of wellness-inspired snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com GBNY PRODUCTIONS: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GBNY Productions, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GBNY Productions, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10679-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. GBNY Productions, Inc. -- https://gbny.com/ -- is a sportswear and designer fashion brands for everyone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Kinnally Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Thomas J. Kinnally, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GigaCloud Technology Inc., Larry Lei Wu, Kwok Hei David Lau, Xin Wan, Frank Lin, Xing Huang, Aegis Capital Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-08381 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 7, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-10684-JMF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for the Securities Exchange Act. GigaCloud Marketplace -- https://www.gigacloudtech.com/ -- offers a seamless end-to-end experience that includes discovery, payments, and logistics solutions on a user-friendly platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason Craig Hegt, Esq. Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Email: jason.hegt@lw.com jeff.hammel@lw.com - and - Kristin Nicole Murphy, Esq. LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP 650 Town Center Drive 20th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 540-1235 Fax: (714) 540-1235 Email: kristin.murphy@lw.com GOLDEN HEAVEN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 19 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Golden Heaven Group Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: GDHG) between April 13, 2023 and November 13, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Golden Heaven investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Golden Heaven class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20494 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Golden Heaven's amusement parks are in generally poor condition; (2) Golden Heaven materially overstated the number of visitors to its amusement parks and overall growth prospects, and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 20, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20494 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Brodies LLP Attorneys Discuss UK Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Craig Watt, Esq., and Syma Din, Esq., of Brodies LLP, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that Google faces another class action, and this time it has been accused of contributing to the cost-of-living crisis. A class action was brought against Google at the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), in which Google has been accused of taking advantage of its market dominance by shutting out competition on mobile search engines. It is alleged that advertisers were fighting for their position on the Google search page, which resulted in consumers having to pay higher prices for the goods and services that they purchased, therefore contributing to the cost-of-living crisis. The action was brought under the representative action scheme which forms part of the class action regime operating in England and Wales. What are Class Actions? Class actions allow two or more parties to collectively raise a claim or proceedings in a single action where they have suffered a loss in the same, similar or related way. Multiple parties raising claims in a single action is not an option that is available worldwide. Nonetheless, a growing number of nations have been implementing procedures that allow them to do so. Although the rules governing the initiation of collective proceedings vary by jurisdiction, class actions are typically initiated as opt-in or opt-opt proceedings. We have previously discussed the difference between the opt-in and opt-out schemes here. England and Wales operate both an opt-in and opt-out scheme, depending on the nature of the action. Representative class actions form part of the opt-out scheme, whereas Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) are part of the opt-in scheme. We have previously compared the differences between the Scottish and English systems in our earlier blog. Representative actions came into the spotlight in the case of Lloyd v Google, where the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal to allow the representative action to proceed against Google in connection with an alleged breach of data protection regulations. Despite the expectation of a decrease in data protection breach claims after the Lloyd's ruling, we continue to see a rise in applications to proceed by way of representative action. Scotland Class actions, known as Group Proceedings in Scotland, came into effect on 31 July 2020, with the implementation of Part 4 of the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018. In Scotland, we have an opt-in system. This essentially means that, in order to be part of the class, you will need to opt-in to be included in the action. Although the 2018 Act, provides for opt-out proceedings, the Scottish Court's rules only allow opt-in procedure. Only time will tell whether Scotland will provide rules to adopt the opt-out procedure. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Reddy Declaration ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing the cited portions of the Reddy Declaration and Exhibit 3. Indeed, throughout this litigation, this Court has sealed similar information and descriptions of internal logs and data systems. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(c), the Defendant submits this Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Google's Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence in Support of Class Certification Reply Briefing, the concurrently filed Declaration of Aarti Reddy, and Exhibit 3 to the Reddy Declaration. Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, and consumer electronics. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RDbgUf at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Aarti Reddy, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Reece Trevor, Esq. Anupam Dhillon, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. Khary J. Anderson, Esq. Elizabeth Sanchez Santiago, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 Telephone: (202) 842-7800 Facsimile: (202) 842-7899 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com wsomvichian@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com rtrevor@cooley.com adhillon@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com kjanderson@cooley.com lsanchezsantiago@cooley.com GOOGLE LLC: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $700MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Duignan-Cabrera, writing for Silicon Valley Business Journal, reports that Google LLC will pay $700 million to settle a federal class action lawsuit alleging that its U.S. Play Store violated antitrust rules. In details released on Dec. 18 from an agreement reached in September, Google revealed that as part of the settlement It will expand billing options in its app store. The tech titan also will allow independent developers to the option of direct payment for consumers and allow consumers to purchase apps on other third-party app stores, a process known as "sideloading." "This settlement builds on Android's choice and flexibility, maintains strong security protections, and retains Google's ability to compete with other OS makers, and invest in the Android ecosystem for users and developers," Wilson White, Google vice president of government affairs, wrote in a statement on the Alphabet Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOGL)-owned company's official blog. First filed in July 2021 by attorneys general from North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, New York and California, the plaintiffs accused Google of abusing its market power with restrictive terms of service for software developers looking to develop and sell or monetize mobile apps on the Android App Store. "Google will no longer profit from the inflated app costs it forced through its abuse of market power," Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in news release. "This settlement will reduce app prices and increase consumer choices on the Android platform. Our office is proud to protect consumers, secure $700 million in financial relief and be a part of this bipartisan effort to ensure one of the most powerful companies in the world follows the law." As part of the settlement Google will pay $630 million into a settlement fund that will be distributed "for the benefit of consumers" as well as $70 million that will go into a fund to be used by the states. To be on the Android App Store, developers are charged a 15% fee for app subscriptions, with Google taking up to 30% for purchases made within popular apps. Moving forward, developers will be able to show users other billing options and pricing, either from their websites or third-party app stores. This isn't the only antitrust case Google has dealt with in 2023. The company is facing multiple antitrust and anticompetitive lawsuits and regulations both in the U.S. and the European Union. Google also faces a federal antitrust case regarding its lucrative advertising model. In that case the government has painted the search giant as a monopoly that paid billions of dollars to partners and competitors alike to ensure its search engine owned 90% of the market. While Google completed its defense in November, the Justice Department's closing arguments are expected in early May. The details of the app store settlement come in the wake of the Mountain View-based tech giant's recent loss in court to video game developer Epic Games. On December 12, a San Francisco jury ruled that Google broke antitrust laws to extract fees and limit competition from game developers by charging for in-app purchases. The Gary, North Carolina-based Epic Games is the publisher of the popular Fortnite video game. In gaming programs, an in-app purchase allows the user to upgrade the app's software, upgrade their character's abilities, tools or weapons, as well as buy new characters. [GN] HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces Bhangal Securities Suit Over Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2023, that on August 24, 2023, a putative securities class action captioned "Bhangal v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al.," No.: 3:23-cv-04332-JSC was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (HEI) and certain of its current and former officers, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against certain of HEI's current and former officers. Plaintiff broadly alleges that HEI and certain of its current and former officers made materially false and misleading statements or omissions regarding HEI's wildfire prevention and safety protocols and related matters. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. On October 5, 2023, the court entered an order extending defendants' time to respond to the complaint until after a lead plaintiff has been appointed by the court in accordance with relevant procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. A hearing on competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff was held last November 30, 2023. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is a holding company, which through its subsidiaries, engages in the electric utility, banking, and renewable/sustainable infrastructure investment businesses. It operates through the following segments: electric utility and banking. Its utility segment involves in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric energy in the islands of Oahu, Hawaii, and Maui, Lanai, and Molokai. HD SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Santiago Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- George Santiago, on behalf of himself, George Santiago, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HD Supply Management, Inc.; HD Supply Management LLC; HD Supply Holdings, Inc.; White Cap Management LLC; and White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 535872/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., December 7, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other manual workers a timely and weekly basis as required by the New York Labor Law. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff Santiago worked as a warehouse worker in one of Defendants' distribution centers in Queens County, New York from May 2019 to December 2019 and was paid bi-weekly at all times in violation of the NYLL. HD Supply Management, Inc. is a foreign business corporation that sells materials, supplies, and services to customers in the maintenance, repair and operations, infrastructure and power and specialty construction sectors. [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@gangatpllc.com HERITAGE CARE: Court Refuses to Order Discovery of Insurance Docs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darryl Smith, Esq., and Ross Donaldson, Esq., of Clyde & Co disclosed that in the case styled Agnello v Heritage Care Pty Ltd; Fotiadis v St Basil's Homes for the Aged in Victoria (No 2) [2023] VSC 653, the Victorian Supreme Court has refused to order the discovery of insurance documents, including insurance policies sought by plaintiffs in a representative proceeding for damages against two aged care facilities (the defendants) concerning the death of residents as a result of contracting COVID-19 whilst in the defendants' care. The proceedings are one of many claims working their way through the Victorian courts in regard to COVID-19 related injuries and deaths. The plaintiffs sought to obtain the discovery of insurance policies that may provide indemnity to the defendants on the basis that they were concerned about the capacity of the defendants to pay any amount of a settlement or judgment obtained in the proceedings. They sought to argue determining the level of insurance cover the aged care facilities had would be relevant to their assessment of their prospects of recovering damages from those entitled by way of settlement of judgment. At the relevant time the insurer was not a party to the proceeding but was granted leave to intervene to be heard on this discovery application. The defendants opposed the production of insurance policies. Following a ruling of the Judicial Registrar on 4 July 2023 who dismissed the discovery application there was a de novo hearing to a single judge of the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs submitted that they were seeking insurance and financial documents to facilitate a settlement of the proceeding and to assist them in making decisions in regard to the reasonableness of any settlement. The plaintiffs relied on the relevant Court Rules in regard to permitting a party to obtain discovery of documents from another party (Rule 29) and provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), the Act which deals with the overarching obligations of parties in civil litigation including as it concerns disclosure and discovery. Section 54 of the Act provides that unless the Court otherwise orders discovery of documents in a civil proceeding is to be in accordance with the rules of the Court. The plaintiff sought to invoke provisions of the Act to obtain Orders for the discovery of insurance documents which would not normally be permitted and had not been permitted in the past under the relevant Rule 29. The Act provides broad discretion to a Court to order discovery to satisfy the overarching purpose of the Act. The overarching purpose of the Act as stated in s 7 included a purpose to "facilitate the just, efficient, timely and cost-effective resolution of the real issues in dispute". The plaintiffs argued that given the broad powers in the Act the Court should exercise its discretion and order the production of the insurance policies which would help in settlement negotiations and to resolve the dispute. Insurance documents the plaintiffs argued would assist them in assessing the ability of the defendants to pay any settlement or judgment and would facilitate the mediation process. It was said that this was overall in the interests of justice, to enhance transparency in the resolution and conduct of the proceeding and mitigate risk to the plaintiffs. It also ensured that the Court's time was not wasted on litigation that turned out to be pointless. Justice Keogh hearing the matter ruled in favour of the defendants and insurer. He found that discovery of insurance documents would not be permitted. His Honour took a traditional view of the purpose of discovery and found that only documents that relate to a question or fact in dispute on the pleadings between the parties must be discovered. He was not prepared to provide an expansive interpretation of the Act and make an order of the kind sought by the plaintiffs. His Honour considered that there was nothing in the text of the Rules or the Act for extending the court's powers to order discovery of documents that are not related to the facts in issue. He considered that insurance documents are confidential to the defendants and insurer and that parties should not be obliged to disclose this private information unless justice requires. He found that there was generally no right of discovery of financial and insurance documents simply for the purpose of examining a defendant's means, in order to decide whether to settle or proceed with their case. His Honour noted that discovery of insurance policies in the circumstances of this claim was likely to cause an asymmetry in bargaining positions that would prejudice the defendants and likely the insurer. In other words, the plaintiffs would achieve an advantage over the defendants. Accordingly, His Honour found the Act and case management principles did not justify the production of insurance policies in these circumstances. As to the plaintiffs' submissions that they required the insurance policies to assess any offer to be made at mediation and to advise the Group Members, His Honour noted that a party at a mediation can challenge assertions made by a defendant about a lack of financial means or insurance, made to justify the quantum of an offer and similarly it is in the interests of the party making an offer to establish the truth of the asserted lack of financial means to encourage acceptance of the offer. It is in the interests of the party making the offer to produce sufficient information to persuade a plaintiff of their capacity or non-capacity to pay a settlement. This is a common approach to negotiations in our experience. As to the risk that a defendant may positively mislead a party about its capacity to pay a settlement of judgment, in circumstances where a plaintiff cannot verify such assertions with the benefit of insurance policies, His Honour noted that the overarching obligations of the Act required the parties in civil proceedings to act honestly and not mislead or deceive another party. We know the court has a wide discretion under the Act to penalise a party if such conduct was established. Further, there are relevant professional conduct rules applicable to solicitors and barristers in this regard. The decision is welcome news for insurers and is consistent with other decisions made in federal and state courts on the issue. However, it should be noted that the insurer was not a party to the proceeding. There was no issue between insurer and insured which may justify an Order for the production of insurance policies. [GN] HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $8.73MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Horizon Actuarial agreed to pay a settlement of more than $8.73 million to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2021 data breach. The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was compromised in a Horizon Actuarial data breach that occurred in November 2021. According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Horizon Actuarial failed to take reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have prevented a November 2021 data breach. These failures allegedly allowed hackers to access consumer names, Social Security numbers, birth dates and plan information. Horizon Actuarial is an actuarial consulting firm that specializes in multiemployer plan benefits. Horizon hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $8,733,446.36 settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members who experienced unreimbursed losses as a result of the data breach can receive up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket loss reimbursement. In order to receive this compensation, claimants must provide documentation of the losses they sustained. Class members can also receive up to $125 for five hours of lost time compensated at a rate of $25 per hour. All claimants are eligible for a one-time payment of around $50. Claimants from California can receive an additional $50 payment. However, these payments may be decreased depending on the number of claims filed and the amount left in the settlement fund after fees, costs and other deductions. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 22, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for March 25, 2024. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 21, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals whose personal information was compromised in a Horizon Actuarial data breach that occurred in November 2021. Potential Award $5,225 Proof of Purchase Receipts or other documentation of out-of-pocket losses. "Self-prepared" documents, such as handwritten receipts, are not sufficient documentation. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/21/2024 Case Name Sherwood, et al. v. Horizon Actuarial Services LLC, Case No. 1:22-CV-01495-ELR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Final Hearing 03/25/2024 Settlement Website HorizonDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Horizon Actuarial Settlement Administrator PO Box 4298 Portland, OR 97208-4298 877-395-9210 Class Counsel Terence R Coates MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Gary M Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Kenya J Ready MORGAN & MORGAN Defense Counsel John J Sullivan Max E Kaplan COZEN O'CONNOR Hsiao C (Mark) Mao BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER [GN] IANTHUS CAPITAL: February 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ If you are a person or entity, other than an "Excluded Person", who acquired securities of iAnthus Capital Holdings Inc. ("iAnthus") during the period from May 14, 2018 to and including April 5, 2020, and who held some or all of those securities at the close of trading on April 5, 2020 (defined as the "Class"), then this NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF HEARING FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL is for you. In 2020, a proposed securities class action was commenced against iAnthus and two of its former officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court"). It is alleged that during the period from May 14, 2018 to and including April 5, 2020 (the "Class Period"), the Defendants made misrepresentations or omissions regarding iAnthus (whether contained in a public document or in an oral statement), or permitted or acquiesced in such misrepresentation(s) and/or omission(s). The parties have reached a proposed settlement of the class action, which is subject to approval by the Court (the "Agreement"). The Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability. The Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims. This Notice provides a summary of the proposed settlement. Under the Agreement, the Defendants will pay or cause to be paid CAD $500,000 (the "Settlement Amount") in full and final settlement of all claims against them, including Class Counsel's fees and disbursements, any approved honorarium, administrative expenses, applicable taxes and interest, in exchange for a full release and a dismissal of the class action. The Settlement Amount, less approved Class Counsel's fees and disbursements, any approved honorarium, administration expenses (such administrative expenses estimated to be CAD $105,055 plus HST), taxes and interest will be distributed to the Class on a pro rata share in accordance with the Court-approved Plan of Allocation. It is estimated that the balance of the Settlement Amount that will be available to be distributed to the Class will be approximately CAD $200,000, inclusive of interest earned upon the Settlement Amount less taxes applicable to said interest. The Agreement and Plan of Allocation may be viewed at www.iAnthusSecuritiesSettlement.ca. There will be a hearing (the "Approval Hearing") in which Class Counsel will request the Court to approve (i) the Agreement; (ii) their legal fees and expenses; and (iii) an honorarium for the representative Plaintiff in the amount of $15,000. The Approval Hearing shall take place on February 20, 2024 via Zoom video-conferencing. At the Approval Hearing, the Court will determine whether the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. At the Approval Hearing, Class Counsel will seek Court approval of their request for fees equal to 30% of the Settlement Amount (being CAD $150,000 plus HST) plus reimbursement of their relevant expenses (estimated to be approximately CAD $1,000). Class Counsel has been working under a contingency-fee agreement, has not been paid as the matter has proceeded. Class Counsel will be requesting that their legal fees and disbursements be deducted from the Settlement Amount. Class Members do not have to do anything to stay in the class action. If the Court approves the Agreement and any benefits, including the Settlement Amount available for distribution to the Class, you will be notified about how to request your portion thereof. If you stay in the Action, you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court and will not be able to sue the Defendants regarding the legal claims made in this case. Conversely, if you opt-out of the proposed settlement you may pursue your own action with your own lawyer at your own expense. A copy of the long-form notice providing greater detail about the settlement, including about Class Counsel's fees that will be requested of the Court, your right to oppose the settlement, the hearing of the motion to approve the settlement, and the right to opt-out is available at www.iAnthusSecuritiesSettlement.ca. The Opt-Out Form must be received on or before February 18, 2024 at 11:59 pm EST to be valid. Interested Class Members may submit their email addresses to the website to stay informed of developments. Any Class Member may participate in the Approval Hearing to object to the Agreement or comment on the Agreement or Class Counsel's request for fees, expenses or honorarium. If they intend to do so, they are asked to email any objections or comments to Class Counsel at info@MSinghLaw.ca no later than January 31, 2024. You may obtain further information at www.iAnthusSecuritiesSettlement.ca or contact the Administrator by email addressed to: info@iAnthusSecuritiesSettlement.ca. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has authorized distribution of this Notice. Questions about this Notice should NOT be directed to the Court. [GN] IOOF: Judge Tosses Shareholders' Class Action --------------------------------------------- Miklos Bolza, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that a class action against IOOF has been knocked down after a judge dismissed claims shareholders overpaid for the firm's shares when it failed to publicly reveal misconduct. While IOOF was aware of internal problems such as potentially improper share trading, plagiarism and compliance breaches, there was no evidence of anything systemically wrong at the wealth management company, the Federal Court found. "The evidence as a whole, does not rise to the level of establishing a problem with IOOF's culture, systems, governance and compliance during the relevant period," Justice Stewart Anderson wrote in a judgment on Dec. 20. Any information about issues that was true and known by IOOF did not have to be disclosed publicly and would not have impacted its share price, the judge said. A spokesperson from Insignia Financial, the company formerly known as IOOF, told AAP the firm was pleased to have successfully defended the claims which it has consistently maintained were without merit. "The allegations were all historical, relating to matters which are more than a decade old," she said. "They were investigated, and disproved or addressed at the time." The Shine-led class action was brought in February 2020 by lead applicant John Douglas McFarlane against Insignia Financial, the company formerly known as IOOF. Mr McFarlane's accusations that IOOF breached its continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct were rejected. The lawsuit sought compensation, interest and legal costs for investors, who alleged they purchased shares in the firm at inflated prices because it failed to disclose material information. The issues were brought to light internally by a whistleblower in March 2014 and later publicly disclosed in mid-2015 in a number of media articles and statements from IOOF managing director Chris Kelaher in senate estimates. On Dec. 20, Justice Anderson found Mr McFarlane had failed to prove a number of allegations against IOOF, including that its staff engaged in insider trading or that it failed to mitigate risks in its business model. Other information shown to be true -- such as the plagiarism of third-party research reports -- would not have affected the firm's reputation or share price, the judge said. Details of two financial planners working for IOOF subsidiary Bridges Financial Services being banned by ASIC were already publicly available, Justice Anderson said. While one had been imprisoned and this was not known generally, the information was not something that would have affected the firm's share price, he said. Mr McFarlane had not provided a rational foundation for any claim to damages as he did not show how details in the media reports and Mr Kelaher's statements actually contributed to a subsequent drop in IOOF's share prices, the judge said. Shine's joint head of class actions Craig Allsopp said the firm would review the judgment and consider whether to appeal. Litigation funder LLS Fund Services is financially backing the class action and will be liable for paying any legal costs ordered by the court. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tylenol Class Actions Pending in Courts ---------------------------------------------------------- Christy Bieber, J.D. and Adam Ramirez, J.D. disclosed that Tylenol is one of the most widely used pain-killers across the world. Recent studies have suggested a potential link between maternal use of acetaminophen (its active ingredient) and an increased autism risk. In response to the concern that acetaminophen could cause autism to develop in children, some parents have begun filing thousands of claims against drug manufacturers as well as against retailers who sold the drug. If you suspect you may have a claim because your child developed autism after being exposed to it in the womb, this guide explains the status of the Tylenol autism lawsuits. What Are the Tylenol Autism Lawsuits? In the medical journal, Nature Reviews Endocrinology, a group of 91 leading medical experts issued a Consensus Statement in September of 2021. The statement warned of the potential link between acetaminophen (also called paracetamol) and autism. It summarized the growing body of research indicating that extensive use of acetaminophen during pregnancy could increase the likelihood of an autism spectrum diagnosis in a baby. In response to the mounting evidence, some parents and families began taking action and filing claims against manufacturers and retailers. This included Walmart, but not Johnson & Johnson (manufacturer of the brand name Tylenol) at the time. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the defendants failed to warn them of the dangers of their products. How Are the Lawsuits Linking Tylenol and Autism Progressing? Because so many people use Tylenol, many cases are being filed. Subsequently, a class action was certified in 2022. And a number of Tylenol lawsuits were moved into a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). A class action means a large group of plaintiffs all come together to bring one big claim. By contrast, plaintiffs retain their individual claims in an MDL but all of the cases are moved so they are heard by one judge to simplify and streamline the process of handling so many cases at once. While Walmart sought to have the case against it dismissed, arguing that FDA rules prevented additional warning labels, the court was not responsive to these efforts. Legal proceedings continued in the MDL, including the approval of a short form complaint plaintiffs could use to more easily join the case as well as the creation of a discovery plan to focus on the collection of documents showing scientific evidence about prenatal exposure risks. By August of 2023, hundreds of claims were pending in federal courts and additional defendants had been named including Johnson & Johnson, Family Dollar, 7-Eleven and Dollar Tree. Many cases were also pending in state courts, proceeding separately from the federal multidistrict litigation. A Causation Hearing Could Shape Future Cases With cases mounting, defendants raised challenges as to whether testimony from the plaintiff's experts should be admitted that attempts to establish the link between acetaminophen and autism. These challenges were to be addressed at a Daubert hearing, which is named after a pivotal case called Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. That case helps establish the criteria for when scientific research and evidence is admissible in court. The Daubert hearing was held in early December and, on December 19, the judge ruled to exclude the evidence the plaintiffs hope to present. This finding by the judge establishes that the scientific evidence linking acetaminophen use to autism is inadmissible in federal court. It is likely that all federal cases in this matter, including the MDL, will be dismissed. Lawsuits will, however, continue in state courts. Should You Join an Acetaminophen Lawsuit? Acetaminophen lawsuits are a type of product liability claim. In product liability claims, it is not necessary to prove the defendant was negligent in order to recover compensation. If there was a flaw in the design or manufacture of the product or a failure to warn of its dangers, plaintiffs can pursue a claim for compensation for resulting damages. If you wish to sue, though, you do need to prove a causal link between your use of the product as intended and the harm that resulted. If you used Tylenol or other acetaminophen products when pregnant and your child was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or ADHD, you may be able to prove this causal link due to the scientific studies showing a tylenol/autism connection. You could potentially become part of the class action or multidistrict litigation, or could independently pursue your case. If you used the medication for a prolonged period, or if your child developed autism despite a lack of pregnancy complications or a lack of family history of the disease, you may have a stronger claim. An experienced product liability lawyer can help you to determine what your best option is with regards to making a case for compensation. Compensation in a Tylenol Lawsuit Many large-scale product liability claims are resolved through a settlement. In fact, one purpose of a MDL is for bellwether trials (representative trials) to move forward so both the plaintiff and defendants can get an idea of how strong their cases are and what compensation might be awarded by a court. This can help to determine an appropriate settlement. If cases settle and you are part of the class action or multi-district litigation, your compensation will be determined based on the terms of the settlement as well as how severely your family was affected. It is possible you could recover tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation. [GN] KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Okays $11.6MM Deal in Debit Cards Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal court in Washington state approved an $11.6 million settlement that ends a class action brought by formerly incarcerated citizens who say they were forced to pay unreasonable, excessive fees on prepaid debit cards instead of having their confiscated cash returned to them. The settlement amount represents almost 40% of the estimated actual damages, a "significantly higher" figure than most class settlements. The case is styled JEFFREY REICHERT and GARY MOYER, v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, L.L.C. d/b/a ACCESS CORRECTIONS; RAPID INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a ACCESS FREEDOM; and CACHE VALLEY BANK. (Case No. 17-cv-05848) (W.D. Wash.) [GN] LIDO DAO: Faces Class Action in California Over LDO Token --------------------------------------------------------- Jessie A Ellis, writing for Blockchain, reports that Lido DAO, a decentralized autonomous organization governing the liquid staking protocol Lido, is currently embroiled in a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed by former LDO holder Andrew Samuels, alleges that Lido's LDO token is an unregistered security and holds Lido DAO liable for the financial losses incurred due to the token's price decline. Lido is a prominent protocol in the blockchain ecosystem, enabling users to stake their Ether (ETH) and receive staking rewards. Users get a derivative token called stETH, which can be utilized in various applications. The Lido DAO, comprising LDO token holders, is responsible for governance decisions within this protocol. Lido stands out in the DeFi space, having locked more than $19 billion worth of cryptocurrency in its contracts, marking it as the largest in terms of total value locked for any liquid staking derivative. Details of the Lawsuit The class-action lawsuit was filed in a San Francisco United States District Court on December 17, 2023. Andrew Samuels, the plaintiff, is a resident of Solano County, California. He asserts that the LDO token, governed by Lido DAO, is an unregistered security according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's criteria. The lawsuit includes defendants such as Lido DAO, AH Capital Management LLC, Paradigm Operations LP, Dragonfly Digital Management LLC, and Robot Ventures LP. These entities are alleged to hold significant control over LDO tokens, limiting the influence of regular investors on governance issues. The Core Allegation Samuels' main contention is that the Lido DAO began as a general partnership led by institutional investors, later transitioning to public token sales for potential exit opportunities. The lawsuit alleges that centralized exchanges were persuaded to list LDO tokens, leading to their purchase by Samuels and other investors. Following the listing, the token's price fell, leading to significant losses for these investors. The complaint leverages a statement from SEC Chair Gary Gensler, suggesting that the LDO token is a security because it involves a group between the tokens and investors, with the public expecting profits from this group's actions. The case, filed under case number 4:2023cv06492, is being presided over by Judge Donna M. Ryu in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. It focuses on allegations of securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. Section 77. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the Lido DAO, LDO token holders, and the broader DeFi and blockchain community, particularly regarding the classification and regulation of tokens as securities. [GN] LOVESAC CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 20 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of The Lovesac Company (NASDAQ: LOVE) between March 30, 2023 and August 16, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 20, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased Lovesac securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Lovesac class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18449 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 20, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Lovesac's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lovesac did not properly account for last mile shipping and freight expenses; (2) accordingly, Lovesac's disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting were ineffective and deficient; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Lovesac overstated its gross profit and operating and net income, as well as understated its shipping and handling costs and accrued freight and shipping expenses, in its previously issued financial statements; (4) accordingly, Lovesac was likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; and (5) as a result, Lovesac's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Lovesac class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18449 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MENARD INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 25, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shoemaker v. Menard Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04089 (W.D. Mo., Filed June 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery and class certification due to ongoing settlement negotiations: -- All pre-trial discovery as to class Jan. 25, 2024 certification shall be completed by: -- Plaintiff shall file all motions Jan. 25, 2024 seeking class certification by: -- The Defendants shall file any responsive Feb. 26, 2024 motions objecting to class certification by: The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Damage Product Liability. Menard is an American home improvement retail company.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action Over Job Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Natalie Missakian, writing for AARP, reports that AARP Foundation lawyers have joined a pending class action charge against social media giant Meta, alleging that technology the company uses to decide what job advertisements show up on Facebook discriminates against women and older job seekers. REAL Women in Trucking (RWIT), a group representing female truck drivers, filed the charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) in December 2022 against Facebook's parent company, Meta Platforms. It alleges that the algorithm the company employs to target ads to its social media users steered some job ads away from women and older workers, a violation of federal employment laws. According to the charge, the algorithm failed to show employment ads to older adults and women if the job was stereotypically associated with men or younger workers, such as truck drivers and mechanics. By intentionally excluding older workers from seeing many job advertisements based on "ageist assumptions," Meta's algorithm is "further fortifying the already significant barriers" older adults face in the job market, AARP Foundation lawyers wrote in a filing with the EEOC. This is not the first time Facebook has been accused of discrimination over how it targets job ads. In 2019, the company settled multiple lawsuits alleging it was permitting advertisers on its website to direct ads only to people who fit certain characteristics. The latest charge, pending before the EEOC, alleges Facebook's algorithm steers the ads away from older workers and women even if this is not what the employer who paid for the ads asked for or intended. "Age and gender discrimination have been pervasive in hiring practices for too long, and new technologies are creating even more barriers that keep qualified older job seekers out of the workforce," said William Alvarado Rivera, senior vice president for litigation at AARP Foundation. "This case aims to ensure older adults have equal footing during their job search, regardless of the industry and any age or gender stereotypes that may be attached to that industry." [GN] METHODE ELECTRONICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 20 announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Methode Electronics, Inc. (NYSE: MEI) resulting from allegations that Methode may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Methode securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21318 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 14, 2023, Methode announced that "[o]n July 10, 2023, Joseph Khoury was placed on leave from his position as Chief Operating Officer." The announcement added that "[Khoury's] powers, authority and duties as such officer of the Company were suspended." Then, on December 7, 2023, Methode announced that "[o]n December 5, 2023, the Board of Directors of Methode Electronics, Inc. (the 'Company') removed Joseph Khoury from his position as Chief Operating Officer of the Company, and Mr. Khoury was terminated as an employee of the Company's Egyptian subsidiary and is no longer associated with the Company." The announcement explained that "multiple other officers of the Company have assumed Mr. Khoury's management duties during this period, while remaining in their current positions and as a result, the Company has eliminated the position of Chief Operating Officer for the present time." On this news, the price of Methode stock fell $2.26 per share, or 9%, to close at $22.13 on December 7, 2023. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MGS MFG GROUP: Hunt Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------ PAUL HUNT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MGS MFG. GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-1640 (E.D. Wis., December 7, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. In approximately January 2023, Defendant hired Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of machine operator working at its Germantown, Wisconsin location. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the court may deem appropriate. Based in Germantown, WI, MGS Mfg. Group, Inc. manufactures medical parts. [BN]. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Roberts, writing for BET, reports that a new class-action lawsuit accuses the Navy Federal Credit Union, the largest credit union in the nation, of racial discrimination in its home mortgage practices. Civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Adam Levitt filed the federal lawsuit Sunday (Dec. 17) on behalf of Black plaintiffs. Navy Federal rejected their home loans despite them having stellar credit ratings and high income. According to the lawsuit, Navy Federal violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibit lending discrimination based on race. The lawsuit cites a CNN analysis published Thursday (Dec. 14). It found that the credit union had the widest mortgage approval rate disparity between white and Black borrowers in 2022. "The outright discrimination that occurs when Banking While Black continues to reveal itself in the lending practices of many of America's largest financial institutions," Crump stated. "It is shameful that Navy Federal, an organization that prides itself in helping the families of men and women who served their country, does not give their Black and Latino customers the same opportunities as White customers." CNN's investigation found a nearly 30 percent gap between Navy Federal's home mortgage approval rate between White and Black members. While the data don't prove discrimination, it goes a long way toward explaining why the credit union rejected Cherelle Jacob and Laquita Oliver's applications. Jacob, a 40-year-old teacher with a Master's degree, and her husband, who is in the armed services, together "make approximately $200,000 in salary, have no debt, have ample savings, and both have 'exceptional' credit scores above 800," according to the complaint. Oliver, 44, is a capital improvement project analyst who "makes approximately $100,000 per year in salary, has good credit, a history of home ownership, and very little debt." Yet, Navy Federal rejected the Miami-Dade County resident's application to support purchasing a $400,000 home. According to CNN's probe, the credit union approved applications for 77 percent of whites, 56 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Blacks in 2022. The 28.6 percent gap between white and Black applicants was the largest among 50 financial institutions. In its analysis, CNN accounted for variables, including income, debt-to-income ratio, property value, and down payment percentage. In response, Navy Federal spokesperson Bill Pearson defended the credit union's lending practices, telling CNN that it's "committed to equal and equitable lending practices and strict adherence to all fair lending laws." He claimed that CNN failed to account for credit scores, cash deposits and the applicants' history with the credit union. CNN said that information is not available to the public, and the credit union declined a request to share that data, adding that Navy Federal rejected most applicants for reasons other than credit history. Navy Federal's alleged discriminatory practices are part of a widespread problem in the mortgage loan industry. The New York Times reported a National Association of Real Estate Brokers study released in 2022 found that lenders denied 15 percent of Black home mortgage applicants compared to 6 percent of white applicants. At the same time, Black borrowers relied on high-cost loans nearly three times more than their white borrowers. "We hope this legal action will stop racial lending discrimination in its tracks and require Navy Federal to right their wrongs," Levitt said. "Home ownership is recognized as the cornerstone of the American Dream. We will not sit by while that dream is denied to hard-working and deserving Americans based on discriminatory practices and algorithms." [GN] NEW JERSEY: Edna Mahan Class Action Settlements Fall Short ---------------------------------------------------------- Colleen O'Dea, writing for NJ Spotlight News, reports that in April of 2021, the New Jersey Department of Corrections announced a settlement in a number of lawsuits filed by current and former incarcerated women over years of alleged sexual harassment and abuse at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women. The settlement, the state said, would include up to $21 million in payments to the women and their attorneys. And touted in the announcement was the resolution of a class-action lawsuit where the state would pay many women who had either been incarcerated during an eight-year period or been subject to harassment or sexual abuse. A number of former inmates who say they were sexually assaulted by corrections officers said they heard about the $21 million settlement and thought they would be getting significant compensation for the abuse they suffered at the hands of corrections officers. The actual amount given to women found to have suffered abuse turned out to be much more modest: Most got an average of less than $55,000. The lawyers on both sides of the case were paid more than the women who were sexually assaulted: $6.33 million vs. $5.7 million. "They're in the news bragging about how they gave us over $20 million for the settlement. No, they didn't," said Lauren Bianco, who spent about five years at the Hunterdon County women's prison and reported having been sexually assaulted numerous times by two different corrections officers. "The state of New Jersey is responsible for not protecting us from their officers . . . and now you give them the power to not only dictate our money, but to disperse it to us and then steal it from us?" At the time the settlement was announced, operations at the state's only women's prison and then-DOC Commissioner Marcus Hicks were under intense scrutiny over both physical and sexual abuse at Edna Mahan. The state Senate passed without opposition a bipartisan resolution urging Hicks to resign or be removed. Federal investigation The U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into the prison in 2018, following several guilty pleas by and convictions of corrections officers and civilian staffers for sexual abuse of 10 female inmates. It issued a scathing report in April 2020, citing a "pattern of abuse" at the facility and stating that the DOC "fails to keep prisoners at Edna Mahan safe from sexual abuse by staff." Nine months later, in January 2021, the state was still negotiating a settlement with the Justice Department over these civil rights violations when Edna Mahan officers seriously injured two women -- one was punched 28 times -- during overnight extractions of some inmates from cells. In all, 15 officers, including the associate administrator overseeing the prison that night, have been indicted on charges of physical assault or covering up the assaults, with a superseding indictment in the case that added the 15th defendant in November. On the eve of Hicks' testimony before a joint Assembly committee in April 2021, his first since the January assaults, the Corrections Department issued two press releases. One stated that the department was implementing a body-worn camera system, initially as a pilot at Edna Mahan, funded in part by a $250,000 grant from the DOJ. The other announced the settlement of civil litigations, including a class-action lawsuit, against the Corrections Department and its administration dating back to 2017 that would provide "up to $20,835,600 in damages and attorneys' fees" to women directly impacted by sexual misconduct or even just incarcerated at Edna Mahan between 2014 and the settlement date. Complex legal settlements The way the court handled the suits was complex, with some individuals' claims settled separately and others combined with the class-action suit. Almost half of the money would go to settle individual suits against the state, a fact that was not made clear in the state's announcement. The DOC has not answered questions about the number of other suits or the dispositions of those, although one document filed with the court indicates there were more than 10 separate suits and several women received more than $500,000 each in settlements. That left close to $11 million for the class-action suit. That lawsuit contended that women at Edna Mahan had suffered years of emotional, and in some cases, physical, distress. It sought monetary compensation and reforms at the prison. Settlement documents filed with the court in 2021 indicated that the state of New Jersey would pay "not more than $7,985,600 in the aggregate" to all the women in the class. "I will tell you that doing any kind of corrections litigation, one of the things you're really struck with … is just how difficult it is, in terms of having access to resources, whether it's housing, whether it's reentry, education programs," said Oliver Barry, one of the lawyers for the women. "My hope is whether it's a lot or a little, that can be a help to some people." Attorney fees The court awarded several attorneys named as class counsel $3 million to cover fees and expenses. In response to an Open Public Records Act request, the New Jersey attorney general's office provided a statement of invoices indicating that the state has paid the outside lawyers it hired to handle the case, the Chiesa Shahinian and Giantomasi law firm, $3.33 million for work between June 17, 2019 and Oct. 30 of this year. The settlement agreement in the class-action suit, filed with the court in June 2021, created three tiers of class members, with each tier being provided a different amount in the settlement. Tier 1 members, defined as anyone incarcerated at Edna Mahan during the seven-year period covered, 2014 to 2021, would be eligible for between $1,020 and $2,920. Those who were subject to sexual harassment -- including verbally and, for example, being watched in the shower -- would be assigned to Tier 2 and eligible for at least the same amount as if they were in Tier 1 and no more than $4,500. Women who suffered sexual assault or abuse would be placed in Tier 3 and could receive up to $250,000. They would have to submit documentation supporting a claim and a special master appointed by the court would decide the merits of each claim during a hearing. Terms and compensation under the Edna Mahan settlement The terms of the class action lawsuit settlement involving women incarcerated in the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women promised a maximum payout to women who were sexually assaulted of $250,000. Women got much less. The graphic shows the terms of the settlement and what women actually received. Five women who had filed some of the original lawsuits were named "class representatives." Each of them received a $50,000 "incentive award," so a total $250,000 was set aside for that purpose. This is a common practice in class-action suits, to recognize the additional effort of those who essentially started the litigation, said David Noll, a Rutgers University law professor who is an expert on class-action lawsuits. But there were other details of the settlement -- which were not publicized and not fully understood by many of the women who stood to receive compensation -- that made it likely the amount received by those who experienced abuse firsthand would never reach the maximum $250,000 allowed. The settlement provided that the class representatives and Tier 1 members, who did not experience sexual harassment or assault firsthand, be paid first. Whatever was left from the $8 million settlement pot of money would then be distributed among those in Tiers 2 and 3, who were either harassed or sexually assaulted. Actual amounts given to the 1,465 individuals who submitted claims have been sealed by the court. But the special master awarded more money to the women than was available. The totals provided to women in Tiers 2 and 3 were smaller than the amounts that had been awarded by the special master engaged to hear the women's claims and determine how much they should receive. The special master had awarded $447,000 to those in Tier 2 and almost $9.9 million to those in Tier 3 who had proven they had been assaulted. In total, the state paid the women in Tiers 2 and 3 $4.2 million less than the special master awarded them. Missed payment deadlines The payments also came later than originally expected. Initially, court documents had envisioned women being compensated last year. When that didn't happen, attorneys for the women went back to court to ask a judge to order the state to pay, saying the state did not devote enough resources to searching for outstanding liens against the women and thus the payouts were being delayed. The Corrections Department had assigned just one staff member to perform all the lien searches. Under an order issued March 7, Superior Court Judge Haekyoung Suh found DOC's failure to meet the payment deadline without seeking a court extension to be "inexcusable" but "not willful" so she gave the state until May 15 to pay all those in Tier 1, with everyone else to be paid by June 15 and ruled that if that didn't happen, the state might have to pay an additional 2.25% to each woman. The state missed the May 15 deadline as well, but its outside attorney, Matthew Beck of the Chiesa Shahinian and Giantomasi law firm argued that the Corrections Department could not meet those deadlines due to circumstances "beyond their control." Those circumstances included, the lawyer said, inaccurate court records, saying that close to 1,000 women had received Tier 1 payments and the ones that remained had missing information. The judge gave the state until July 15 to pay all the remaining Tier 1 claim amounts and additional time to pay the others. Barry, one of the attorneys for the women in the class-action suit, said he thought all, or almost all, of the women have been paid. But it wasn't until a court filing dated May 30 that it became clear the women in the higher tiers would not be receiving the maximum amounts they had been expecting. The filing noted that after those in Tier 1 were paid, there was only $5.8 million left for those in the other tiers. Noting that the special master had approved $10.3 million in awards, court documents stated that every woman in tiers 2 and 3 would receive only 56.5% of the amount which she was originally awarded. The lower settlement awards were not the result of an underestimation of the number of women impacted, Amy Z. Quinn, the director of public information for the Corrections Department, said. "The amount of class damages and the method of allocation were negotiated by the NJDOC and class counsel during mediation before a retired federal judge," Quinn said, adding that all claims were paid according to that agreement and then prorated because the special master's awards exceeded the amount available under the settlement. Barry said there is a silver lining to the fact that higher award amounts had to be cut; it means that outreach to women impacted was successful and that a large number of women would get at least some compensation and no money would revert back to the state. "It was a great return rate, meaning that there was a percentage reduction because enough people came forward," he said. "And the special master found enough of them credible that he did not deny a lot of those claims. "Would I have liked to have seen a greater amount that was available for class claimants? Absolutely," Barry continued. "But this was not something, obviously, where the state rolled over and agreed to a settlement . . . So I have two minds about it. I would have always liked in any case -- particularly this one -- for everyone to always get more, not that more is ever going to be enough. On the other hand, I am pleased that it was set up in such a way that it reached and was able to touch a lot of people and that there wasn't a reverter of the state just getting their money back. I'm very happy about that." As for why the settlement provided for the payment to all women who had spent time in Edna Mahan first, rather than to those who suffered actual sexual assault first, Barry said, "These are just some of the settlement things that you try to hash out." Noll said it is common in class-action settlements for people in the class to receive less money than they originally had been told to expect. Frequently, a fund is established to settle all claims for a fixed amount, regardless of the number of claimants. Women not given details Most women were not told the amount to which they were entitled, as determined by the special master and so are unsure of how much less they are getting than the special master had recommended. Bianco, however, had an email from the settlement administrator in June 2022 telling her she would receive a check "in the near future which is expected to be in the amount of $250,000 as a tier 3 maximum payout." When she finally received her settlement check on July 15, it was for $81,911, less than a third of the $250,000 maximum she had been told to expect. "I'm expecting a $250,000 payout by July 15," she said. "But when I got my check, finally, it wasn't even the 56%. They took another $60,000-something from me." Deductions made to satisfy liens A small amount of the difference is about $2,800 in liens deducted from all settlements that exceeded $2,000. Fees were subtracted to pay for any child support, motor vehicle or tax liens against the women in the settlement found because of a records search; the women even had to pay a $10 fee to cover the cost of the search. There was also a deduction for "NJDOC Liens." A number of women reported these totaled more than $2,000 and said they did not have any such liens outstanding. No documentation was included enumerating the fees. Quinn said the liens covered commissary expenses, Victims of Crime Compensation Board charges and court-ordered restitution and that DOC made sure the amounts withheld were accurate. "Before funds were distributed, each member of the class's accounts was audited by NJDOC's Central Office Revenue Unit and any fines or penalties owed to NJDOC not previously collected were deducted from the amount of the final settlement payment amount," she said. In Bianco's case, Quinn said additional court-imposed fines of $2,685 were added to her record last February after the department audited four systems that have information about indictments, fines and collections. Quinn did not explain why DOC did not provide a full accounting to the women of the liens against them. Impossible to figure out In June 2022, Barry had complained in court papers that the state "has not provided sufficient documentation to ascertain what the asserted claim or lien represents," thus making it impossible to tell if the money was being properly withheld. He and another attorney sought to have the court require the state to reimburse some of the class representatives and women they represented separately, contending that some of the liens were "unenforceable." They were disputing about $155,000 withheld from 14 women or an average of $11,000 per woman. Among these were fees for representation by the state Office of the Public Defender that were more than 10 years old and, thus, no longer collectible. The public defender's office subsequently waived those liens, but a judge ruled the rest of the fees had been properly withheld. For 11 individuals who received individual settlements, that totaled more than $144,000 or an average of 3% of their awards. Bianco has a number of health issues and an infant and was counting on the $250,000 she had been told she would receive. She planned to pay bills and help with a fledgling business. This, she said, all feels like a betrayal. "First of all, they paid all of Tier 1 their money first and they got every cent of their money and then they decided they didn't have enough money to give out the rest of the amounts that people were awarded," Bianco said. "Tier 3 were the people that were actually assaulted, that actually had endured something from the officers, and we had to go in front of a special master and tell our story and he was the one deciding our payout. I did this whole hour-and-a-half-long interview that was super traumatic, with this man that was in charge of everything. I told my story. A couple of weeks later, I find out that I'm getting $250,000 and so it's just a waiting game at that point. "It's literally my only chance at being able to take care of this baby and get on our feet," she added. Other complaints Other women complained about the Correction Department's fee reductions and what they considered to be smaller checks than they thought they were eligible to receive. "Nothing happened to the officers who assaulted us, at least not the officer in my case," said Toni Sissler, who said she received a payment of about $28,000. "The five girls (who were class representatives) got $250,000 and got paid first. We went through the same things . . . and we have nothing to show for it." Another woman, who is still incarcerated and asked that her name not be used, appears to have been placed in Tier 2 and said she had more than $1,500 in liens withheld, "but they will not tell us what for or what was taken and we can't ask them." And the women likely have little or no recourse. Women had to join the class action or opt out of it, by Jan. 10, 2022. On joining the settlement, a woman had to sign a document stating she could not further sue the state regarding sexual harassment or assault. Noll of Rutgers University said such a stipulation is typical for class-action settlements. It is unclear, though, whether that prevents someone from suing based on actual or perceived problems with the settlement. An unknown number of women opted out of the settlement and the status of those is unknown. "I would have never signed on if I knew they were going to cut the payout," Bianco said. While some women did not get the amount they expected, Barry said he hopes the money will help all the women in some way. "There was no amount of money that is ever going to be enough for anyone in this kind of situation," he said. "A lot of people we were able to reach. We were able to make some really positive new law and we were able to recover something for people to help turn a page on a pretty dark chapter in their lives. No amount of money fixes this or makes it okay. And I am particularly aware of that." [GN] NORTON HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack ------------------------------------------------------------ Noelle Friel and Derek Brightwell, writing for WAVE, report that a new class action lawsuit has been filed against Norton Healthcare. The lawsuit is about the ransomware attack in May that leaked the information of 2.5 million Norton patients, including social security numbers, contact information, drivers license numbers and more, the company said in a letter to those impacted. One of the patients who received that letter was Shelly Harman. Her son, now a senior at Seneca High School, has a congenital disorder causing chronic pain in his foot. He underwent an MRI earlier this year to learn if he would need to undergo another surgery. After the data breach, Shelly had to wait to learn the results of the MRI for more than a month. "We even went to the hospital to try to get them and once the doctor did finally get them, they were only a partial result, it wasn't the full result so that delayed us even further," Harman said. "When you're dealing with pain, it's not very pleasant." The lawsuit was filed by Margaret Garrett, one of the affected patients. In it, Garrett is "seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief and all other relief authorized by law." The lawsuit claims that Norton failed to "secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and approximately 2.5 million other individuals' personally identifiable information and personal health information." It's the second such lawsuit filed against Norton. The first came in July and claims a former Norton employee and longtime patient was informed after the attack that her private information was found on the dark web, including her social security number and credit card information. The letter to patients says Norton is enhancing its security safeguards. While Shelly says she hasn't had any issues regarding her personal information, she believes the company should do more to prevent this from happening. "Better protect our information," Harman said. "I wish it hadn't happened." [GN] NY AND CO: Mitchell Sues Over Unlawful Pricing, Sales Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- KANISHA MITCHELL and KIM MOSELEY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. NY AND CO ECOMM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; NY AND CO IP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and SAADIA GROUP LLC, a New York limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10117 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought to address Defendants' misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website, www. www.nyandcompany.com, in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants advertise fake and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain price. Indeed, Defendants apply strikethrough pricing and "% off" discounts to merchandise it describes as "New Arrivals," which purportedly are newly added to the website, and therefore could not have been listed for sale at the regular price for any substantial period of time. All reference prices on the website for New York & Co.-branded products are fake. They are not original, regular, retail, or former prices. They are inflated prices posted to lure consumers into purchasing items from Defendants, alleges the suit. As a result, the Plaintiffs and other consumers are deceived into spending money they otherwise would not have spent, purchasing items they would not have purchased, and/or spending more money for an item than they otherwise would have absent deceptive marketing, the suit asserts. NY and Co Ecomm LLC is an online retailer of clothing and accessories, advertising and selling its company-branded products through its website.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com PBM SUPPLY: Faces Obrien Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON RILEY OBRIEN, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PBM SUPPLY & MFG INC., a California corporation; PBM SUPPLY & MANUFACTURING, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV03337 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff alleging that Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California Business and Professions Code, and seeking redress for these violations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members consistently worked at Defendants behest without being paid all wages due. They were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. The Plaintiff also contends that Defendants failed to pay Class Members all wages due and owing, including by requiring off the clock work, unlawfully rounding to their detriment, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to furnish accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay wages including final wages, failing to maintain accurate records, and failing to reimburse for necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within the State of California at any time from four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. PBM Supply & Mfg. Inc. is a farm equipment supplier based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 PORNHUB: Judge Certifies Child Sexual Abuse Victim's Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Koplowitz, writing for AL.com, reports that a federal judge on Dec. 19 certified a class action lawsuit against Pornhub's parent company led by a woman who was sexually abused as a child five years ago in Alabama and whose rape was uploaded to the pornography website. Anyone who appeared in videos or images taken when they were under 18 years old that were available on Pornhub or other websites run by Aylo, its parent company, from Feb. 12, 2011 through Tuesday, Dec. 19, can join the class action lawsuit, ruled Chief U.S. District Court Judge L. Scott Coogler in Tuscaloosa. Aylo, formerly known as Mindgeek, said it would not comment on the ruling "out of respect for the integrity of court proceedings. "We look forward to the facts being fully and fairly aired in that forum," the company told AL.com. The woman, only identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe, was 16 years old when she was drugged and raped in 2018 by a Tuscaloosa man who uploaded video of the sexual assault to PornHub. Coogler noted in his ruling that the woman's abuser was convicted. The lawsuit was also brought by a California victim whose abuse was uploaded to Pornhub. The victims contend Pornhub violated a number of laws, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act , which allows victims to sue entities in civil court who benefit from "a venture that it should have known was engaged in a violation, including that an act involving a child 18 years of age or under constitutes a violation," according to their complaint. Lawyers for the plaintiffs claim Pornhub did not make an effort to check whether the Alabama victim was a minor or victim of rape or sex trafficking. They applauded Coogler's decision on Dec. 19 to allow the class action case to move forward. "We're gratified that the court has certified this class of victim-survivors and look forward to holding Pornhub and its related companies accountable for their actions," said Josh Hayes, partner at Prince Glover Hayes, who represents the Alabama victim, in a statement. "This is a team effort and we're grateful to all of the firms who are partnering with us to represent Jane Doe and the other survivors. Jane Doe's courage in representing the class 'helps more vulnerable [child] victims come forward with their claims and potentially receive relief than might otherwise come forward individually.'" The lawsuit is the second in the country to be certified as a class action against Pornhub's parent company. [GN] PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Oguin Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joyce Oguin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, Arietis Health, LLC, Anesthesia Consulting & Management, LP, NorthStar Anesthesia of Missouri, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00817 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13025-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an American public company that produces software for creating and deploying business applications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Kristen Anne Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, Ste. 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 482-3700 Fax: (617) 482-3003 Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com PROGRESSIVE AUTO: Must Face Class Action Over Vehicle Valuation --------------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class of Colorado residents who made total loss automobile policy claims through Progressive Direct Insurance Company and received payment based on a valuation using a projected sale adjustment rate was certified by a federal court in a class action challenging the adjustment rate. The US District Court for the District of Colorado certified the class on Dec. 18, following in the footsteps of at least three other federal courts that certified similar classes in suits challenging vehicle valuation adjustment rates earlier this year. Michael Curran brought the class action after his car was totaled. [GN] PROGRESSIVE GULF: Wright Sues Over Failure to Return Deductible --------------------------------------------------------------- Keondrae Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00235-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss., Dec. 11, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation of Mississippi law by failing to return all of an insured's deductible to the insured when Defendants recover the insured's deductible through subrogation. The Defendant's standard form insurance policy with Plaintiff and members of the putative class provides. The Defendant Progressive Gulf's contract and Defendants' conduct violates Mississippi's "made whole" doctrine. The "made whole" doctrine provides that "an insurer is not entitled to equitable subrogation until the insured has been fully compensated." Further, Mississippi law provides that its "made whole" doctrine cannot be overridden by the terms of Defendant Progressive Gulf's insurance policy. The Defendant violated Mississippi law and failed to keep its contractual promise to apply Mississippi law when it recovered Plaintiff's deductible through subrogation and then pro-rated the amount of the deductible paid to Plaintiff. This business practice was not random or isolated to Plaintiff, nor was it the result of a mistake or ignorance of Mississippi law. Rather, the Defendant's conduct is part of a common and uniform business practice and protocol employed by it when subrogation recoveries are obtained and deductibles are due to be returned to its Mississippi insureds, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a renewal automobile insurance policy ("auto policy") from Defendant Progressive Gulf. Progressive Gulf markets, sells, and underwrites automobile insurance in the State of Mississippi. Progressive Gulf is owned by Progressive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. James M. Terrell, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205.939.0199 Facsimile: 205.939.0399 Email: rgm@mtattorneys.com jterrell@mtattorneys.com - and - Joseph F. Murray, Esq. Brian K. Murphy, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614.488.0400 Facsimile: 614.488.0401 Email: murray@mmmb.com murphy@mmmb.com RANCHO ESQUON: Faces Mathis Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- GARY RUSSELL MATHIS SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANCHO ESQUON, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 23CV03336 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., Dec. 1, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay all overtime owed, failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, retaliatory practices and violation of unfair competition law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Watermaster from 1999 to July 2023. Rancho Esquon, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Contra Costa County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Joseph Gross, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com Joseph@frontierlawcenter.com RCI LLC: Stone Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCI, LLC. The case is styled as Shalina Stone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RCI, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00291-WMR (N.D. Ga., Dec. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RCI -- https://www.rci.com/ -- is a timeshare exchange company with over 4,300 affiliated resorts in 100 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com RE/MAX LLC: Settles Burnett Class Action ----------------------------------------- RE/MAX Holdings, 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 20, that its subsidiary RE/MAX, LLC entered into a Settlement Term Sheet on September 15, 2023 and a Settlement Agreement on October 5, 2023 to resolve a pending litigation in a class action lawsuits brought by Scott and Rhonda Burnett et al. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB. On November 20, 2023, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. It remains subject to final court approval and will be effective following any appeals process, if applicable. Remax Holdings is a franchisor in the real estate industry under the RE/MAX(R) brand and mortgage brokerages in the U.S. under the Motto(R) Mortgage brand. RE/MAX LLC: Settles Moehrl Class Action ---------------------------------------- RE/MAX Holdings, 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 20, that its subsidiary RE/MAX, LLC entered into a Settlement Term Sheet on September 15, 2023 and a Settlement Agreement on October 5, 2023 to resolve a pending litigation in a class action lawsuits brought by Christopher Moehrl et al. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:19-cv-01610-ARW. On November 20, 2023, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. It remains subject to final court approval and will be effective following any appeals process, if applicable. Remax Holdings is a franchisor in the real estate industry under the RE/MAX(R) brand and mortgage brokerages in the U.S. under the Motto(R) Mortgage brand. RE/MAX LLC: Settles Nosalek Class Action ----------------------------------------- RE/MAX Holdings, 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 20, that its subsidiary RE/MAX, LLC entered into a Settlement Term Sheet on September 15, 2023 and a Settlement Agreement on October 5, 2023 to resolve the pending litigation in class action lawsuits brought by Jennifer Nosalek et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:20-cv-12244-PBS). On November 20, 2023, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. It remains subject to final court approval and will be effective following any appeals process, if applicable. Remax Holdings is a franchisor in the real estate industry under the RE/MAX(R) brand and mortgage brokerages in the U.S. under the Motto(R) Mortgage brand. ROCKET MORTGAGE: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Mortgage LLC. The case is styled as Darren MacDonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rocket Mortgage LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02558-DJH (D. Ariz., Dec. 11, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Rocket Mortgage, LLC -- https://www.rocketmortgage.com/ -- formerly Quicken Loans, LLC, is an American mortgage lender, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th St. Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq. BROWN PATENT LAW 15100 N 78th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (602) 529-8347 Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com SALEM COMMUNITY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Kamczyc, writing for 21WFMJ, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the Salem Community Hospital and Perry Johnson & Associated Inc. (PJ&A) over a data breach it said occurred between March 2 and May 2. About 9 million people were impacted by the data breach, according to the lawsuit, which was filed on Dec. 20. However, the victims of this data breach weren't alerted to the incident until November. The lawsuit, filed by Michael Stone and Leeanne Varner, claims the defendants waited more than seven months to alert the victims of the data breach and failed to tell them how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took so long to alert the victims. " . . . Cybercriminals had unrestricted and unrestrained access to Plaintiffs' and the Class's highly private Sensitive Information for perhaps as much as five weeks. Discovery may reveal that this occurred for a longer period," the lawsuit claims. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution together with costs and attorney's fees. According to PJ&A, a medical vendor that offers medical coding, transcription, and reporting services to medical providers, the data breach occurred with a medical transcription service provider the hospital uses in Nevada. Although the hospital has yet to file an answer to the complaint, Debbie Pietrzak, vice president of marketing for the hospital, told 21 News earlier that the leaked data did not include any credit card information. However, Salem Regional was not clear if any social security numbers may have been accessed. The letter from PJ&A states the files accessed contained names, social security numbers, and one or more of the following: date of birth, address, phone number, medical record, hospital account number, and date/s of service. PJ&A stated in a letter in November that the company is not aware of any instances of fraud or identity theft involving the data leak. Despite this, the lawsuit claims the group's failure to notify the victims promptly made them vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of sensitive information. [GN] SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Pizana Suit Transferred to D. Utah ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Raul Pizana, Maureen Hobbs, Charles Berglund, Jeanette Mills, Erica Laroche, Ann Marie Lynch, Oskar Laffont, Sal Munoz, Keith Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sanmedica International LLC, Basic Research, LLC, BR Cos, LLC, Basic Research Holdings, LLC, Basic Research Intermediate, LLC, Sierra Research Group, LLC, Majestic Media, CRM Specialists, LLC, Bydex Management, Limitless Worldwide, Novex Biotech LLC, Bodee Gay, Gina Daines, Haley Blackett, Kimm Humphries, Mitchell K. Friedlander, Case No. 1:18-cv-00644 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00889-DBP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. SanMedica International, LLC develops and distributes anti-aging products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Lauren Anderson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Celine Cohan, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 22525 Pacific Coast Hwy Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 - and - Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 BROADWAY STE 1070 OAKLAND, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com wgriffith@tzlegal.com - and - Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 9255 Sunset Boulevard, Ste. 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Phone: (213) 788-4050 The Defendant is represented by: David R. Parkinson, Esq. Jason M. Kerr, Esq. Ronald F. Price, Esq. Steven Garff, Esq. PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC 5742 W Harold Gatty Dr., Ste. 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 530-2900 Fax: (801) 530-2959 Email: davidparkinson@ppktrial.com jasonkerr@ppktrial.com ronprice@ppktrial.com steven.garff@ppktrial.com - and - Lisa L. Boswell, Esq. Stephen Y. Ma, Esq. EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER AND MCRAE LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd. 17 FL Los Angeles, CA 90048 - and - Christopher B. Sullivan, Esq. MITCHELL BARLOW & MANSFIELD PC 9 Exchange Pl Ste 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 998-8888 Email: csullivan@mbmlawyers.com - and - Ryan M. Hemar, Esq. EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER AND MCRAE LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., 17 FL Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (323) 301-4660 - and - Chad E. Nydegger, Esq. WORKMAN NYDEGGER 60 E South Temple, Ste. 1000 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 533-9800 Email: cnydegger@wnlaw.com - and - M. Elizabeth Day, Esq. DLP PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP 2000 University Ave. East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248 Phone: (650) 833-2000 SANTANDER BANK: Almanzar Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santander Bank, N.A. The case is styled as Juan B. Almanzar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Santander Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-10706-AS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Santander Bank, N.A. -- https://www.santanderbank.com/ -- is an American bank operating as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLC 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (718) 770-7901 Email: dcohen@consumerattorneys.com SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY: Frazier Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- RANDOLPH FRAZIER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00346-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., December 7, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Savannah-Chatham County Public School System employs numerous bus drivers such as Plaintiff who help transport he students. These drivers are paid by hourly wages and certain bonuses at different times throughout the school year. However, throughout Plaintiff's and the other bus drivers' employment, SCCPSS failed to include all bonuses in the regular rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA, says the suit. SCCPSS is a school district within the state of Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com SOUTHEAST QSR: Maddox Files ADA Suit in S.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southeast QSR, LLC. The case is styled as Lisa Maddox, M.D. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southeast QSR, LLC, Does 1 to 25, Case No. 1:23-cv-00185-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Dec. 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Southeast QSR, LLC is a restaurants, and restaurants and bars company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Stembridge, Esq. STEMBRIDGE TAYLOR LLC 2951 Piedmont Road, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 604-2691 Email: john@stembridgetaylor.com SPOILEDCHILD INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spoiledchild, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Spoiledchild, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10719 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SpoiledChild -- https://www.spoiledchild.com/ -- is an e-commerce company that sells hair products and skin products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com T-MOBILE USA: Violates Consumers' Right to Free Speech, Juarez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND JUAREZ, ANTHONY FOSTER, ROXY LOPEZ, SHERRI SHERWOOD, and RACHEL GALARSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE, USA Inc. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV31225 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Civil Code Section 1670.8 and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. According to the complaint, T-Mobile's Website Terms of Use violated the law by requiring website users and visitors to agree to its terms by visiting, shopping on, or using its platforms, including but not limited to t-mobile.com and metrobyt-mobile.com. The Defendants' conduct is unlawful because it is aimed to stifle California consumers' right to free speech and the right of the California public to hear lawful discourse. Moreover, T-Mobile seeks to have users waive their right as consumers to make negative statements regarding T-Mobile or its employees, agents, goods or services, and further threatens to penalize consumers for making such statements, says the suit. T-Mobile, USA Inc. is an American wireless network operator headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. John R. Ternieden, Esq. Trent J. Nelson, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com jternieden@singletonschreiber.com tnelson@singletonschreiber.com TUFT AND NEEDLE: Licea CIPA Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSE LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TUFT AND NEEDLE, LLC, a Delaware entity d/b/a WWW.TUFTANDNEEDLE.COM, Case No. 23STCV28947, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 20, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10648 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act by aiding and abetting several spyware companies to use a pen register to access and obtain the Plaintiff's IP address on his device. Tuft and Needle, LLC is an American mattress and bedding manufacturing company headquartered in Arizona. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nick S. Pujji, Esq. Kimberly G.A. Dennis, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 623-9300 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 E-mail: nick.pujji@dentons.com kimberly.dennis@dentons.com TW SERVICES: Ewing Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------- BRITTNEY LEANN EWING, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. TW SERVICES, INC., a California STOCK corporation; RICHARD LNU, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV29952 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 7, 2023) seeks to recover civil penalties under the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees a 30-minute uninterrupted, timely, and complete meal period for days on which the employee worked in excess of five and ten hours per day without being afforded uninterrupted, timely, and complete 30-minute meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof including, without limitation, by interrupting meal periods; not providing timely meal periods; failing to provide first and second meal periods; providing short meal periods; requiring that employees carry cellular telephones or walkie-talkies during meal periods; not permitting employees to leave the premises; otherwise requiring on-duty/on-call meal periods; and auto-deducting meal periods that could not be auto-deducted by law or during which employees worked, as required by California wage and hour laws. Based in California, TW Services, Inc. provides distribution services throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Jared Walder, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrawlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com jared@tomorrowlaw.com UNITED STATES: Tucker Files Suit in S.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA, et al. The case is styled as Travius Kentrell Tucker, and all others similarly situated v. State of Illinois, Case No. 3:23-cv-03877-SMY (S.D. Ill., Dec. 8, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Misleading Medicare Ads ----------------------------------------------------------- The Estate Of Bibi Ahmad, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., United Healthcare Inc., and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-02303 (C.D. Cal., December 7, 2023) arises from the misleading Medicare Advantage (MA) advertising practices of United Healthcare and UnitedHealth Group and asserts claims against the Defendants for, among other things, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and for violations of the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, United's conscious non-disclosure of material facts to their MA enrollees of their highly restricted and shrinking MA network of participating hospitals and providers, limited geographic area of services, substantially restricted skilled nursing facility services, restricted specialist access, prior authorization requirements and known improper denials, pre-payment medical record reviews, and high rate of improper payment denials are core to its oversized MA member enrollment. As a result, United MA members incorrectly present and use their government issued Original Medicare cards for services, which are ultimately denied by OM and United -- and payment becomes the full responsibility of the beneficiary to bear out-of-pocket, says the suit. Headquartered in Minnetonka, MN, UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is a publicly held Delaware corporation that conducts insurance operations nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gloria Juarez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GLORIA JUAREZ 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 300 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Telephone: (949) 288-3402 E-mail: gloria@thegjlaw.com USHEALTH ADVISORS: Human TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, John and Jane Does 1 through 9, Case No. 23SL-CC04820 was removed from the St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida on Dec. 11, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01586 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. USHEALTH Group -- https://www.ushealthgroup.com/ -- is a leading health coverage provider, offering affordable and personalized plans for everyone looking for a custom coverage solution.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Baucom, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP - St. Louis 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 621-5070 Fax: (314) 621-5065 Email: cbaucom@atllp.com VACO LLC: Montenegro Alleges Misclassification, Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL D. MONTENEGRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VACO LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01265 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 1, 2023) alleges that Plaintiff and others similarly situated were unlawfully misclassified as salaried-exempt employees and were denied overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at the rates required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant from approximately November 2022 through June 16, 2023 as a recruiter. He asserts that in misclassifying him and similarly situated recruiters as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, Defendant failed to properly evaluate their actual job duties. Vaco LLC is a management consulting company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Ave North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Ave., Ste. 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com VALLEY NATIONAL: White Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bridgette White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Valley National Bancorp doing business as: VALLEY BANK, Case No. 8:23-cv-01897 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13027-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Valley National Bancorp doing business as Valley Bank -- https://www.valley.com/ -- is a regional bank holding company headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Nicole Dapeer DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com The Defendant is represented by: Natalia Cristina San Juan, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2400-2500 Miami, FL 33131 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (305) 810-2532 Email: nsanjuan@huntonak.com - and - Tania Cruz, Esq. MCCARTER ENGLISH, LLP/MIAMI 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (786) 385-7372 Email: tcruz@mccarter.com WESTLAKE, OH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hamilton et al. Say --------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA HAMILTON, GREG WELLMAN, JOANNE SEGUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF WESTLAKE, OHIO, seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs were employed by the City as dispatchers but were not paid overtime on all hours worked over 40 per seven-day period, says the suit. Defendant's Police Department oversees and is responsible for the staffing of the 911-Emergency Telephone Systems Board, located in the City of Westlake.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle M. Chaffin, Esq. OHIO PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION 10147 Royalton Road, Suite J North Royalton, OH (44133) Telephone: (440) 237-7900 Facsimile: (440) 237-6446 E-mail: dchaffin@opba.com YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Tenant Screening Report ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., RENTGROW, INC., and CLEARA, LLC. Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10118 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The suit seeks class relief under the FCRA for all consumers that have been subjected to RentGrow's illegal conduct in failing to conduct a prompt reinvestigation, as well as an individual action for failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of information before publishing that the Plaintiff was a sex offender. According to the complaint, when the Plaintiff applied for an apartment, he was denied housing when the landlord obtained a tenant screening consumer report from RentGrow, a consumer reporting agency wholly owned and controlled by Yardi. The report contained sex offender information about the Plaintiff that the California Supreme Court determined to be unreportable more than a decade earlier and, thus, was inaccurate in 2023 when RentGrow reported it to Plaintiff's prospective landlord. It was illegal for RentGrow to report the sex offender information on Plaintiff's report in the first place, which was made worse when Plaintiff disputed the information to RentGrow and it refused to conduct a reinvestigation unless the Plaintiff first completed a proprietary form, the suit asserts. Yardi Systems, Inc. offers management software and client support services. The Company provides services to investment management firms, housing projects, property management firms, and construction management companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenna Dakroub, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS 6345 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 247 Encino, CA 91316 Telephone: (602) 807-1525 Facsimile: (718) 715-1750 E-mail: E: jdakroub@consumerattorneys.com YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-10778 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504 et seq. ("RA") prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://yhc.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://yhcathletics.com and https://www.bkstr.com/youngharrisstore, (collectively the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals—thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant operates the YHC online retail store as well as the YHC interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com [*] 6th Cir. Strikes Down Class Certification Order in PFAS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory N. Heinen, Esq., Elizabeth S. Stone, Esq., and Grace E. Stippich, Esq., of Foley & Lardner, disclosed that "Seldom is so ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis." This is not the accolade any plaintiff wants to receive, and especially not on behalf of 11.8 million class members. But on November 27, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a proposed class lacked standing to proceed with PFAS claims, denied of "one of the largest class actions in history," and even worse, ordered dismissal of the case entirely. PFAS Plaintiff Asserts Nationwide Class Plaintiff Kevin Hardwick sued a group of 10 manufacturers and distributors of specialty chemicals. Per- and polyfluoraylkyl substances (PFAS), nicknamed "forever chemicals" because they do not break down in the environment and comprise a diverse group of many man-made chemicals that have been used in commercial products and industrial processes worldwide since the 1940s. Hardwick's personal-injury class action alleged that he had trace levels of five separate PFAS compounds in his blood even though he did not know which of the many defendant companies contributed the chemicals to his bloodstream. Notably, the chemicals did not make Hardwick sick either, and he did not know whether they would ever make him sick. Hardwick's proposed class is perhaps the most notable aspect of his case. Initially, Hardwick sought to include "nearly every American" in a proposed nationwide class because, according to him, PFAS has contaminated the blood of almost all Americans and allegedly pose harm to humans at any dose. He argued this created sufficient cohesion among the members to form a class. Although the Ohio federal district court rejected his proposed nationwide class, it nonetheless certified a class of "nearly all 11.8 million residents of Ohio, along with anyone else otherwise subject to its laws." Sixth Circuit Reverses Class Certification and Dismisses Case The Sixth Circuit struck down this class certification order on November 27, and instructed the district court to dismiss the case. The Sixth Circuit focused on standing—a prerequisite to a federal court's jurisdiction. To pursue a case in federal court, the doctrine of standing requires a plaintiff to show three things: (1) the plaintiff suffered an injury; (2) that injury can be traced to the defendant; and (3) a court can redress the injury. Without standing, a federal court lacks power to adjudicate a plaintiff's claim. The Sixth Circuit held that Hardwick failed to show the second element of standing: traceability. The court explained that traceability "requires a showing that the plaintiff's 'injury was likely caused by the defendant'—or in this case, by each of the ten defendants." Hardwick failed to make this showing, for two reasons. First, Hardwick treated the ten defendants in the case "as a collective," referring only to their actions as a group. But a plaintiff must trace his injury to each defendant individually. Hardwick did not make this defendant-specific showing. Second, Hardwick's allegations were "conclusory," and therefore, not sufficient to show traceability. The case was still in the early stages of litigation (the parties filed "pleadings," which mean the documents Hardwick filed to initiate the lawsuit and the defendants' papers filed to respond to the allegations), but that the parties had yet to engage in "discovery." This means Hardwick did not yet have information produced by the defendants available to prove traceability. But the Sixth Circuit held that even at the pleadings stage, a plaintiff must do more than make a conclusory "'the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.'" Hardwick failed to allege facts "supporting a plausible inference that any of these defendants caused these five particular PFAS to end up in his blood." Unable to meet this burden, Hardwick lacked standing to sue the manufacturer and distributor defendants. The Sixth Circuit accordingly vacated the district court's class certification order and remanded the case for the district court to dismiss entirely. Looking Ahead The Sixth Circuit's standing analysis suggests that courts will only go so far in entertaining novel theories of recovery in PFAS cases. Absent significant evidentiary development up front, PFAS plaintiffs may struggle to trace an injury to a particular defendant in order to make legally sufficient allegations of traceability. This decision could pose a material barrier to PFAS plaintiffs' ability to pursue litigation at the outset, particularly if other circuits adopt a similar approach. [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 ***