/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240118.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 18, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 14 Headlines 123TIRES AND SERVICE: Ramos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages 3M COMPANY: Rickstrew Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Ridings Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Sanders Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Shockley Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Sixth Circuit Tosses PFAs Class Action 3M COMPANY: Storm Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Swartz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams A & M WARSHAW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges ABM AVIATION: Suchite Lawsuit Removed from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal. AMAZON.COM INC: SDBN Suit May Impact Future of EU Class Actions AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Picciotti Suit Over Concealed Ticket Fees AMERICAN EXPRESS: Debit Card Users' Class Action Can Proceed ANASTASIA IVLEEVA: Moscow Court Dismisses Class Action AON RISK: Skinner Insurance Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Wis. APTDECO INC: Nelson Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ARIZONA ASSOCIATION: Masiello Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Shapiro Sues Over Stock Price's Precipitous Drop BEST BUY: Dean Sues Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties BLUE BUFFALO: Price Files False Ad Suit Over Pet Food Products CITRIX SYSTEMS: Nunn Sues Over Privacy Data Breach DADA NEXUS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 11 DELAWARE LIFE: McClendon Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC: Patients Sue Over Surgery Malpractice E.I. DU PONT: Faces Bell Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water E.I. DU PONT: Faces Wickline Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Kuecher Sues Over Failure to Protect Info ESTEE LAUDER: Averts Class Action Over Virtual "Try-on" Tool EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Washington FLY JAMAICA: Class Action Over Guyana Crash Settled for $5MM FOX BUILDING: Misclassifies Laborers, Vega Suit Claims GIORDANO'S OF KISSIMMEE: Faces Palmquist Suit Over Tip Credit GOURMET CLUB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Stroude Says HEALTH-ADE LLC: Faces Class Action Over PFAs in Kombucha Products IDEXX LABORATORIES: Labelle Foundation et al. Sue Over VC+ Failure KALAMAZOO AREA: Phillips Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT KINDER MORGAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges LA SALLE UNIVERSITY: Leonard Sues Over Refusal of Tuition Refund LEGACY HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, K.L. Says LUNA GROCERY: Fails to Pay OT Premiums, Melo Suit Says MAISON SOLUTIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 4 MERAKI INSTALLERS: Plenge Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages MERCURY SYSTEMS: Artificially Inflates Financial Results, Suit Says MOLD RESTORATION: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. MONTREAL, QC: Group of NDG Residents Sues Over July 2023 Floods NASCO: Faces Lu Class Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Discloses Personal Info to FB, Myers Says NATIONAL REALTOR: Recent Class Actions May Disrupt Housing Market NATIONALE-NEDERLANDEN: Settles Class Action for EUR300 Million NEW RIVER: Paris Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers NOVA LINES: Gadson Alleges Violation of the Truth in Lending Act NSC HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Private Info, Nicholas Says PACIFICORP: Oregon Labor Day Fire Class Action Trial Begins PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Artificially Inflates Stock Price, Schoenrock Says PEPPERIDGE FARM: No Preservatives Label "False," Ward Suit Claims PIONEER EXPLORATION: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Chavera Alleges PROPAK LOGISTICS: Roberts Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal. R. JABBOUR & SONS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Colak Says RAUDALES TRUCKING: Franco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices SCORE MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Law Violations SEA WORLD: Prado Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. SELKIRK SPORT LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIKA AG: Vera Construction Sues Over Unlawful Price Fixing SOKU RESTAURANT: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SP PLUS: Murry Class Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. STANLEY STEEMER: Huber Files Suit in S.D. Ohio SUNRUN INC: Fails to Pay Lead Qualifiers' OT Wages Under FLSA TEXAS ASSOCIATION: Martin Sues Over Real Estate Market Conspiracy TRANSPORT FOR NSW: Ironbridge Assumes Lead Role in Class Action TRANSUNION RENTAL: Martinez Sues Over Misleading Consumer Reports TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Suit Alleges Gender Discrimination UNCLE VINNY'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Hernandez Claims UNUM LIFE: Faces Threadgill Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty WALMART INC: Shoppers Seek to Revive Fraud Class Action WESTFIELD BANK: Levy & Rondoletto Sue Over Overdraft Fee Assessment WILLIAMSBURG VEGAN: Mediza Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages ZONA RESTAURANT: Reyes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ********* 123TIRES AND SERVICE: Ramos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Ramos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. 123Tires and Service LLC, Aharon Biton, and Kijana Noel, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09146 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action arising from Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a service writer at Defendants' tire shop and automotive service center from August 2023 to, through and including, October 2, 2023. He alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to furnish wage statements. 123Tires and Service LLC owns the tire shop and automotive service center known as "Tire Pro NYC" located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com 3M COMPANY: Rickstrew Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Rickstrew, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05686-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Ridings Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Ridings, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05687-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Sanders Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Brian Keith Sanders, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05688-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Shockley Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Wysonia Shockley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05689-RMG D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Sixth Circuit Tosses PFAs Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Morgan Harrison and David Marmins, in an article for ABA, disclosed that in an order that is sure to have far-reaching implications for years to come, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently directed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by Kevin Hardwick, a former firefighter who sought to represent a class comprising nearly every person residing in the United States against ten manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including 3M and DuPont. Among other things, Hardwick requested that the district court appoint a "Science Panel" to investigate the potential health impacts of various PFAS, whose conclusions would "be deemed definitive and binding on all the parties." The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ultimately certified a class comprising every person residing in the State of Ohio, which defendants appealed on the basis that, among other things, Hardwick lacked standing to bring the case. The Sixth Circuit agreed, noting that based on the pleadings alone, combined with certain undisputed facts, Hardwick could not show the existence of his own "case or controversy" under Article III as to every defendant. After listing the cardinal elements of standing, the court explained that to survive the defendants' challenge, Hardwick must allege that he suffered a redressable injury that is traceable to the defendant(s). Hardwick's complaint, however, failed to establish standing for several reasons, not the least of which was that "[t]he subject of nearly every verb in the 'General Factual Allegations' section of Hardwick's First Amended Complaint is 'Defendants.'" In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Inj. Litig., 87 F.4th 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2023). The court stressed that even at the initial pleading stage, a plaintiff cannot lump defendants together and only make general allegations without specifying what each defendant did to harm the plaintiff. "[T]he Supreme Court has long made clear that 'standing is not dispensed in gross.'" "For even a plaintiff 'who meets the 'actual-injury requirement' -- a point sharply contested here -- 'does not thereby obtain a license to sue anyone over anything.'". The court also held that Hardwick's claims were too conclusory to survive to discovery. Indeed, in his complaint, Hardwick did not tie the PFAS compounds in his blood to any particular manufacturer or other source. "Nor did he allege any plausible pathway by which any of these defendants could have delivered any of these five PFAS to his bloodstream . . . . Hardwick does not know what companies manufactured the particular chemicals in his bloodstream; nor does he know, or indeed have much idea, whether those chemicals might someday make him sick; nor, as a result of those chemicals, does he have any sickness or symptoms now." Hardwick provides a succinct and direct appellate opinion on which defendants in PFAS litigation will rely across the country for years to come. Plaintiffs should take note of the powerful language in the Hardwick order. Many forthcoming briefs from defendants are sure to invoke the first line of the court's order: "Seldom is so ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis." Hardwick, though, is unlikely to stem the present tide of PFAS lawsuits The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation to establish legally enforceable levels, or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for six PFAS in drinking water. For the two original PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, the MCL would be 4 ppt, a level most drinking water providers cannot meet without significant upgrades to their filtration systems. These regulations could become law any day, and when they do it will embolden plaintiffs PFAS lawyers and increase the already steady stream of PFAS suits. Also, studies attempting to trace PFAS to health problems continue and, if findings are as most suspect -- that these persistent chemicals are linked to illness or disease -- an entire new era of PFAS suits is sure to follow. [GN] 3M COMPANY: Storm Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- James C. Storm, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05690-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Swartz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Miles Elwood Swartz, III, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-05664-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com A & M WARSHAW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY BROWN and ROBERT HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A & M WARSHAW PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 150040/2024 (N.Y., Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, as well as overtime compensation which they are statutorily and contractually entitled to receive. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as plumbers. A & M WARSHAW PLUMBING & HEATING, INC. offers a complete range of plumbing and heating services in the New York City area. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone:(212) 943-9080 Email: Lambinder@vandallp.com ABM AVIATION: Suchite Lawsuit Removed from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as Maria Felipe Suchite, an individual on behalf of herself and others v. ABM Aviation, Inc., a Georgia corporation; ABM Industries Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 2023-00051258-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Nov. 27, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, on Jan. 2, 2024. The Southern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00003-LL-SBC to the proceeding. The suit alleges the following causes of action against the Defendants on behalf of herself and the putative class: failure to pay minimum/regular wages; failure to pay state overtime; failure to comply with meal break laws; failure to comply with rest break laws; failure to reimburse expenses; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to pay wages timely; failure to provide and maintain records; and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200, et seq. The Plaintiff defines the class as "all of the Defendants' current or former nonexempt employees who worked in the state of California from November 26, 2019 to the present." The Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of California when the State Court Action incepted and when this Petition and Notice was filed. ABM provides a comprehensive list of airline services and aviation services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Fleming, Esq. Matthew C. Lewis, Esq. Lukas R. Kramer, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 E-mail: lf@paynefears.com mcl@paynefears.com lrk@paynefears.com AMAZON.COM INC: SDBN Suit May Impact Future of EU Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Burkhart, writing for Corporate Compliance Insights, repots that late last year, a Dutch consumer rights group sued Amazon, claiming that the company illegally tracks users' online activity without their permission, an allegation eerily similar to a 2021 case in which Amazon was found to have violated the GDPR. The class action is one of the first major cases since the EU made it easier for consumers to file class-action claims. But whether the new law will be a boon for wronged consumers or a boondoggle that will overtax the court system remains to be seen, writes law student Chelsea Burkhart. The newest Amazon lawsuit in the Netherlands is poised to potentially be a battleground for public policy considerations, extending far beyond the individual case. Stichting Data Bescherming Nederland (SDBN) filed a class-action lawsuit against tech giant Amazon for violating EU privacy law after the EU implemented a law in June making it easier for consumer groups to bring class-action cases against companies. While class-action suits have long been an expected staple in U.S. courts, this new law will create a shift in not only how consumers seek redress, but also in how EU law firms operate. Background of the case Looking at this case generally, SDBN alleges that Amazon collects personal data from cookies and tracks consumers' behavior across the internet to sell targeted advertising space without their permission. According to SDBN, the new class-action suit represents around 5 million Amazon account holders in the Netherlands whose behavior is tracked across various websites and Amazon in order to sell specifically targeted advertisement space. If that sounds familiar, it might be because Amazon was fined a record $887 million dollars for a similar EU data-protection law violation in 2021. There, Amazon was fined for violating the 2018 GDPR, a piece of legislation aimed to protect consumers' data collected by companies by ensuring consumers' consent to data tracking is clear and easily revocable, as well as ensure that companies must notify data protection authority about a data breach within 72 hours of knowledge. Luxembourg's privacy regulator fined Amazon the record $887 million for noncompliance with the GDPR and required Amazon to revise undisclosed business practices. Amazon responded that it was undisputed that no data breach occurred and that how it shows relevant advertising to customers is subject to interpretations of the GDPR. The new SDBN suit partly mirrors the previous record-breaking fine because of the dispute over tracked behavior and targeted advertisement, which Amazon maintains is subject to interpretation. Given the fact that Amazon got well more than a slap on the wrist for similar misconduct in recent years, combined with other tech giants also being sued for similar personal data and targeting advertisements, it seems that the nearly 5 million consumers in this class-action suit have a firm leg to stand on. Amazon, however, maintains that privacy and security of its customers is its top priority, and the company has appealed the previous Luxembourg privacy regulator's penalty. A test of new EU law Of course, a compliance program need not be perfect to be effective and evidence of misconduct itself does not equate to ineffectiveness. What is a good indicator of an ineffective compliance system? One indicator might be when a company knows of a problem and instead of self-remediation to prevent similar events in the future, continues the same misconduct to maximize profits. Whatever you might think of Amazon's action or the legal merits of this new class-action suit, however, one central issue that might silently dominate the outcome is the delicate balance between bolstering consumer protection through robust compliance systems and preserving court resources in light of the EU's new class-action laws. This battle of consumer protection is part of the broader challenge of reconciling consumer interests while acknowledging the practicalities of the legal system in a booming technological age. EU legislation over the past five years has trended toward protecting its citizens both through privacy regulation and the ability to take part in class-action suits, which until recently were predominantly an American form of redress. The issue, however, is whether European courts are prepared for this aggressive and costly form of action. Not only can class-action suits be wildly expensive for companies, certainly causing fear for companies' conduct in Europe, but they also weigh heavy on court resources. The complexity of these suits and the simple allocation of court resources to oversee class members, manage the litigation process and ensure appropriate distribution of settlement or judgment will be a huge new strain on European courts and law firms. This is especially true given that the latest EU class-action regime doesn't actually create new corresponding courts. Instead, EU members are directed to create legislation enabling suits within existing court structures. Beyond the strain on EU member courts, who are not as familiar with the aggressive U.S.-style class-action suits, companies are still grappling with how suits in Europe will affect their current conduct and exposure. Similar to the courts, companies operating in Europe are either unfamiliar with the magnitude of U.S.-style class actions, or they previously found comfort in operating without the risk of these suits. The outcome of this case, therefore, might not be as simple as finding and addressing corporate wrongdoing in Amazon's practices (again or for the first time -- pending the outcome of the 2021 fine and appeal). Instead, considering that this case represents roughly 5 million Amazon account holders, the risk of waves of similar class-action suits might be too great for European courts at this time. On top of the risk of court resources, companies across Europe will also need to weigh the cost of continuing business practices as they stand with the risk of reputational harm and monetary fines from class-action suits, as well as the cost of complying with the data protection regulations against their ad revenue. While emboldening consumers, new class-action legislation will start to pinch courts and companies alike. All this to say: The outcome of this case will offer insights into future implications for both businesses, mainly massive corporations, and the EU's legal system as it navigates the evolving terrain of modern consumer protection and class-action litigation. Clearly passed to protect and offer consumers aggressive redress for corporate harm, the EU legislation risks biting off more than it can chew without adequate court resources. Compliance officers across Europe for now have the ability to weigh these risks before additional waves of class-action come. Ultimately, though, compliance departments and businesses worldwide will find some direction as they seek to tie all loose ends (or put out fires) by watching Amazon deal first hand with Europe's newest class-action legislation. The outcome of this battle for consumers' rights against court resources and company profits might simultaneously rely on and decide the future of European consumer data privacy protection. [GN] AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Picciotti Suit Over Concealed Ticket Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ VIVIAN PICCIOTTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00110 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to disclose the total cost of its tickets, including AMC's convenience fees, throughout the online ticket purchase process in violation of the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is an entertainment company, with its principal place of business in 11500 Ash St. Leawood, Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Debit Card Users' Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ PYMNTS reports that debit card users in nearly a dozen states have been granted the ability to pursue class-action claims against American Express. This follows a Tuesday (Jan. 9) ruling by U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, Reuters reported Wednesday (Jan. 10). The lawsuit accuses the company of driving up merchants' fees on transactions, resulting in consumers paying hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges, according to the report. Reached by PYMNTS, an American Express spokesperson declined to comment on the report. While credit card users were denied class-action status, this ruling is the latest development in the ongoing litigation over rules that restrict merchants from "steering," or encouraging consumers to use certain cards, according to the report. The class certified by Garaufis includes debit card users from Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina and other states, as well as the District of Columbia, the report said. The plaintiffs contend that American Express' alleged restraints on merchants accepting its cards led to higher prices for consumers at popular retailers such as Ikea, Target, CVS and Dick's Sporting Goods, per the report. The lawsuit claims that these restrictions caused consumers to pay inflated prices, resulting in overcharges amounting to more than $319 million, according to the report. While debit card users were granted class-action status, credit card users were denied the same status, the report said. Garaufis determined that the inclusion of credit card reward programs and other variables introduced too many differences among potential class members. The judge's ruling did not address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, leaving the possibility of future dismissal, per the report. In another recent development around claims of steering, a class-action lawsuit was filed against PayPal in October, alleging that the company engaged in anti-competitive practices that resulted in higher prices for consumers during eCommerce transactions. The lawsuit claimed that the anti-steering rules of the eCommerce payment supplier and owner of Venmo stifled competition and prevented merchants from discounting products purchased with lower-cost payment options. Reached for comment by PYMNTS at the time, a PayPal spokesperson provided a statement: "PayPal continues to put our customers first in everything that we do, and we take this responsibility seriously." [GN] ANASTASIA IVLEEVA: Moscow Court Dismisses Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ WFIN reports that a court in Moscow on Jan. 10 rejected a class-action lawsuit against a Russian TV presenter that sought $11 million in moral damages after she hosted a party where guests were encouraged to show up wearing next to nothing. The suit against Anastasia Ivleeva was one element of a scandal that erupted after her bash at a Moscow nightclub last month. A well-known rapper who attended wearing only a sock around his genitals and two on his feet was sent to jail. Public denunciation of the party reflected the rise of fiercely conservative sentiment in Russia amid President Vladimir Putin's accusations against the West for trying to undermine "traditional values" and the nationalism intensified by Russia's war in Ukraine. Invitations to Ivleeva's party described the dress code as "almost naked." Photos from the party circulated on social media. Conservative legislators, bloggers and others unleashed a storm of criticism, contending the images were unseemly, even unpatriotic, for a country embroiled in war. In the wake of the outrage, several of Russia's biggest pop-culture figures have issued public statements seeking forgiveness for attending the bash. The rapper Vacio, whose legal name is Nikolai Vasiliyev, was sentenced to 15 days in jail for disorderly conduct and fined 200,000 rubles ($22,000) for allegedly spreading "LGBTQ propaganda" in a video. He was to be released on Saturday, but was handed a second sentence of 10 days. He also was summoned to report to a military recruitment center, a member of Russia's Public Monitoring Committee said. The Moscow district court rejected the lawsuit against Ivleeva on jurisdictional grounds, saying there is no record of her living in the district. It was unclear if the plaintiffs would try to file it elsewhere. The suit called for the damages to be paid into a fund supporting soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Also on Jan. 10, another Moscow court ordered the nightclub where the party was held closed on the grounds of violating sanitary regulations. [GN] AON RISK: Skinner Insurance Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Wis. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE SKINNER and SAMANTHA SKINNER v. AON RISK SERVICES CENTRAL, INC., Case No. 2023CV008951 (Filed Nov. 29, 2023), was removed from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Jan. 2, 2024. The Wisconsin Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00003-JPS to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that they "had purchased travel insurance from Defendant" to cover "flight disruptions due to a winter storm," but after they filed a claim for benefits related to their flight cancellations, Aon Risk "steadfastly denied the claim on the basis that the delays were not the result of inclement weather." The Plaintiffs dispute this claim determination, and contend that the "Defendant has denied the claims of all travel insurance customers that filed a claim for reimbursement due to the Southwest inclement weather disruption identified above." The suit asserts counts for breach of contract and bad faith. The Plaintiffs assert that Aon Risk failed to properly and timely adjust the claim, conduct a diligent investigation, relay accurate information concerning the terms and conditions of the policy, and breached certain express and implied duties to the Plaintiffs and putative class. The Plaintiffs further contend that the Defendant has breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by intentionally or recklessly disregarding evidence to support the underlying insurance claim and resolving uncertainties against its insureds in order to deny coverage and that the Defendant failed to proceed on the Plaintiffs' and putative class's subject insurance claim in a manner that is honest and informed and has acted in bad faith. The Complaint alleges a nationwide class defined as follows: All persons who, a) who purchased travel insurance from the Defendant, b) had their travel plans adversely impacted by Winter Storm Elliott, c) filed a claim for reimbursement from the Defendant, and d) were denied coverage by the Defendant, within the one year preceding this case through the date of class certification, e) and who have not filed for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. The Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the putative nationwide class "all losses due and owing under the policy, all other compensatory and pecuniary losses, attorney fees and costs, and punitive damages." Plaintiffs Shane Skinner and Samantha Skinner were domiciled and residing in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin at the time the complaint was filed. Aon Risk provides retail insurance brokerage and risk management services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen E. Kravit, Esq. Aaron H. Aizenberg, Esq. KRAVIT, HOVEL & KRAWCZYK S.C. 825 North Jefferson Street - Fifth Floor Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 271-7100 Facsimile: (414) 271-8135 E-mail: kravit@kravitlaw.com aha@kravitlaw.com APTDECO INC: Nelson Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------ Vonda Nelson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. AptDeco, Inc., Reham Fagiri, and Kalam Dennis, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10816 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, seeking recovery, for herself and all other similarly situated individuals, against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish wage statements, and unlawful deductions from tips. Plaintiff Nelson was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver from June 2021 to, through and including, October 2021. AptDeco, Inc. is an online marketplace for buying and selling used, new and vintage furniture and decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com ARIZONA ASSOCIATION: Masiello Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Masiello, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arizona Association of Realtors; The Phoenix Board of Realtors, Inc., d/b/a The Phoenix Association of Realtors; Scottsdale Area Association of Realtors; West and Southeast Realtors of the Valley, Inc.; Tucson Association of Realtors, Inc.; HomeSmart Holdings, Inc.; My Home Group, LLC; Realty One Group Arizona, Inc.; West USA Realty, Inc.; Hague Partners Holdings, LLC; Realty Executives, LLC; Valley Metro Investments, Inc., d/b/a Arizona Best Real Estate; Corduroy IP, LLC, d/b/a North&Co.; Silverleaf Realty, LLC; Retsy, LLC; Walt Danley Realty, LLC, d/b/a Walty Danley Local Luxury, Christie’s International Real Estate; Bortlock, LLC, d/b/a The Brokery; Roy H. Long Realty Company, Inc., d/b/a Long Realty; Tierra Antigua Realty, LLC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00045-JZB (D. Ariz., January 5, 2024) alleges conspiracy among Defendants to implement and enforce anticompetitive restraints in the residential real estate market. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated the federal and state antitrust laws. Specifically, rules created by the National Association of REALTORS (NAR) -- and implemented and enforced by Defendants in Arizona -- compel home sellers to pay inflated commissions to the home buyer's broker, even though the buyer's broker does not represent the seller. Further, NAR rules stifle negotiation over buyer-broker commissions, fixing the commissions at an inflated rate regardless of the experience or actual services rendered by the buyer broker, says the suit. Arizona Association of REALTORS is Arizona's largest trade organization with a membership of over 55,000 real estate professionals. The organization aims to lobby for policies that benefit realtors and provide educational and professional development opportunities for its members. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - David M. Cialkowski, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 80 S 8th Street, 1100 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Shapiro Sues Over Stock Price's Precipitous Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------- PERRY SHAPIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSERTIO HOLDINGS, INC., DAN PEISERT, and PAUL SCHWICHTENBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169 (N.D. Ill., January 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Assertio's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Assertio securities at artificially inflated prices between March 9, 2023 and November 8, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the company's reliance on Indocin products to boost its net income was unsustainable given the risk of generic competition; (ii) the Spectrum Acquisition was less valuable than Assertio had represented to investors; (iii) accordingly, Assertio had overstated the positive impact the sale of Indocin products and the Spectrum Acquisition were likely to have on the company's profitability; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of Assertio's stock declined $2.44 per share, or 45.6 percent, to close at $2.91 per share on August 4, 2023. The price of Assertio's stock continued to decline $0.92 per share, or 43.19 percent, to close at $1.21 per share on November 9, 2023 and $0.12 per share, or 10.96 percent, to close at $1.01 per share on January 4, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant damages, says the suit. Assertio Holdings, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with principal executive offices located at 100 S. Saunders Road, Suite 300, Lake Forest, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com BEST BUY: Dean Sues Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers ----------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE DEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00007-WMR (N.D. Ga., January 5, 2024) arises from the Defendant's breach of its duties and obligations of ensuring its product to be safe and free from any defects. Plaintiff asserts several claims against the Defendant, including breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent design defect, and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons who purchased any of these models of Insignia: NS-MC60SS8, NS-MC60SS9, NS-MC80SS9, NS-MCRP6NS9, NS-MCRP6SS9. The said pressure cookers have dangerously defective and/or incorrect volume markings on the inner pot. The defect can cause consumers to overfill the pot resulting in hot food and liquids being ejected when the pressure cooker is vented using the quick release method or opened while its contents are pressurized, posing a burn hazard to consumers, says the Plaintiff. Best Buy Co., Inc. is engaged in the retailing business of consumer electronics, home office products, entertainment software, appliances, and related services. The company also designs, manufactures, markets, imports, distributes and sells consumer electronics and kitchen products, including "Insignia Multi-Function Pressure Cooker." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Michael Kaufman, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com brent.kaufman@poulinwilley.com BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Vomvolakis, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. VIMAL MEHTA, RICHARD I. STEINHART, PETER MUELLER, JUNE BRAY, SANDEEP LAUMAS, MICHAEL MILLER, MICHAL VOTRUBA, AND KRISHNAN NANDABALAN, and BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00003 (D. Conn., Jan. 2, 2024) is a shareholder derivative action that seeks to remedy wrongdoing committed by BioXcel directors and officers from December 15, 2021 through the present and to recover the excessive and unfair compensation they have awarded to themselves in breach of their fiduciary duties, and to set meaningful limits and controls on their ability to do so going forward. BioXcel's net revenue was $0 in 2021 and $375,000 for the full year 2022. Despite this lack of revenue in 2021, BioXcel's average total compensation per non-employee director, excluding Defendant Krishnan Nandabalan, was $612,952.75. The Company's lead and only product derived from the BXCL501 molecule is sold and marketed under its brand name IGALMI, which achieved FDA-approval in July 2022 to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients. Piggybacking on its approval for a drug derived from the BXCL501 molecule, BioXcel sought to launch another new indication of BXCL501 to treat Alzheimer's disease related agitation, says the suit. BioXcel is a fledgling New Haven, Connecticut based biopharmaceutical company surviving solely on one commercial product derived from the BXCL501 molecule utilizing artificial intelligence approaches to develop transformative medicines in neuroscience and immuno-oncology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fletcher Moore, Esq. MOORE LAW, PLLC 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, New York 10005 Telephone: (212) 709-8245 E-mail: fletcher@fmoorelaw.com - and - Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com BLUE BUFFALO: Price Files False Ad Suit Over Pet Food Products -------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BLUE BUFFALO COMPANY, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11096 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2023) assert claims for Defendant's alleged violations of New York General Business Law and for breach of express warranty for marketing its wet and dry pet food in a misleading manner by misrepresenting that many of its products are "natural." According to the complaint, the Defendant clearly claims the products are "natural" on the label, capitalizing on the preference of health-conscious pet owners to purchase pet food that is free from synthetic ingredients. However, Defendant's products contain multiple synthetic ingredients. As a result of its deceptive conduct, Defendant violates state consumer protection statutes and has been unjustly enriched at the expense of consumers, says the suit. Plaintiff Price has purchased the products for personal use at various times during the applicable statute of limitations. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. advertises, markets, manufactures, distributes, and sells the pet food products throughout the United States, including in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com CITRIX SYSTEMS: Nunn Sues Over Privacy Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER W. NUNN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60029-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 5, 2024) arises out of the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Defendants' failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices. Among other things, Plaintiff Nunn alleges that the Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff and Class Members under the Federal Trade Commission Act by failing to provide fair, reasonable, or adequate computer systems and data security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. Citrix is a Florida-based software corporation that provides software products and services to its clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra Warren, Esq. Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Brendan Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com charles@cuneolaw.com brendant@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. Daniella Bhadare-Valente, Esq. Morgan L. Burkett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun St. Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com dbhadare-valente@nealharwell.com mburkett@nealharwell.com DADA NEXUS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 10 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Dada Nexus Limited (NASDAQ: DADA) between May 11, 2023 and January 8, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Dada investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Dada class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21670 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) Dada revenues from online advertising, marketing services, and operations and support costs were materially overstated; (2) as a result, Dada would need to conduct an independent review to ascertain the financial impact and the scope of suspicious practices that led to overstated revenues and costs; 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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 11, 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=21670 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] DELAWARE LIFE: McClendon Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN MCCLENDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELAWARE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13095-JCB (D. Mass., Dec. 14, 2023) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. On no later than February 9, 2023, upon information and belief, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. Delaware Life Insurance Company is an insurance and annuity provider with principal place of business located in Waltham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC: Patients Sue Over Surgery Malpractice --------------------------------------------------------------- Maddens Lawyers have commenced a class action against Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd (DCSS) and the following doctors (defendants): -- Dr Daniel Lanzer -- Dr Daniel Aronov -- Dr Daniel Darbyshire -- Dr Ryan Wells -- Dr Alieza Fallahi (Dr Ali) The class action has been commenced in the Victorian Supreme Court on behalf of all patients who have suffered loss or damage because of cosmetic surgery being performed at DCSS or by one or more of the defendants. The class action alleges that each of the defendants engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. It is also alleged that cosmetic surgeries were not undertaken with an appropriate level of care and skill. Hundreds of patients of DCSS have reported devastating experiences and outcomes in connection with cosmetic surgery procedures such as: -- inadequate pre surgery consultations -- botched results -- a lack or complete absence of after care -- psychological trauma -- lasting physical deformities -- nerve pain -- numbness. There is a range of procedures patients have undertaken such as: -- liposuction (including '360 lipo' and 'mega lipo') -- otoplasty -- face lifts -- tummy tucks -- BBLs -- treatments for lipodemia -- breast augmentation -- liposculpture. Any patient who has had an adverse outcome as a result of their cosmetic surgery at DCSS or by one of the defendants may be eligible to participate in the class action. Patients are encouraged to contact Maddens Lawyers to discuss their circumstances, confidentially and with no obligation. Maddens Lawyers is advancing the class action on a 'no win, no fee' basis. [GN] E.I. DU PONT: Faces Bell Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water -------------------------------------------------------------- DARWIN BELL and DAVINA BELL v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00007-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil action for equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by the Plaintiffs and Class members, and any other damages which the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury and property damage arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants in connection with contamination of human drinking water supplies used by the Plaintiff Darwin Bell. As a result of the Defendant's negligent, improper, inadequate, inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its ownership, operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the Plant, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for which they seek redress and damages. Additionally, the Defendant's acts and/or omissions which give rise to injuries and damages alleged were substantially conducted within the state and have caused tortious injury to the Plaintiff as well as thousands of other similarly situated Leach class members in the state who were exposed to the C8 contaminated water which the Defendant released, says the suit. The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia, known as the "Washington Works Plant".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon C. Conlin, Esq. F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. Mitchell Theodore, Esq. Brett Thompson, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-2200 Facsimile: 205-324-7896 E-mail: jconlin@corywatson.com jtapley@corywatson.com mtheodore@corywatson.com bthompson@corywatson.com E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WASHINGTON and SHEILA WASHINGTON v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00003 (S.D.W. Va., Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil action for equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by the Plaintiffs, and any other damages which the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury and property damage arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants in connection with contamination of human drinking water supplies used by the Plaintiff Darwin Bell. As a result of the Defendant's negligent, improper, inadequate, inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its ownership, operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the Plant, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for which they seek redress and damages. Additionally, the Defendant's acts and/or omissions which give rise to injuries and damages alleged were substantially conducted within the state and have caused tortious injury to the Plaintiff as well as thousands of other similarly situated Leach class members in the state who were exposed to the C8 contaminated water which the Defendant released, says the suit. The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia, known as the "Washington Works Plant".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon C. Conlin, Esq. F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. Mitchell Theodore, Esq. Brett Thompson, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-2200 Facsimile: 205-324-7896 E-mail: jconlin@corywatson.com jtapley@corywatson.com mtheodore@corywatson.com bthompson@corywatson.com E.I. DU PONT: Faces Wickline Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water ------------------------------------------------------------------ BEVERLEE WICKLINE v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00005-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil action for equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by the Plaintiffs and Class members, and any other damages which the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury and property damage arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants in connection with contamination of human drinking water supplies used by the Plaintiff Darwin Bell. As a result of the Defendant's negligent, improper, inadequate, inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its ownership, operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the Plant, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for which they seek redress and damages. Additionally, the Defendant's acts and/or omissions which give rise to injuries and damages alleged were substantially conducted within the state and have caused tortious injury to the Plaintiff as well as thousands of other similarly situated Leach class members in the state who were exposed to the C8 contaminated water which the Defendant released, says the suit. The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia, known as the "Washington Works Plant".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon C. Conlin, Esq. F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. Mitchell Theodore, Esq. Brett Thompson, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-2200 Facsimile: 205-324-7896 E-mail: jconlin@corywatson.com jtapley@corywatson.com mtheodore@corywatson.com bthompson@corywatson.com EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Kuecher Sues Over Failure to Protect Info ------------------------------------------------------------- RACHAEL KUECHER, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 162080/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Dec. 13, 2023) is a complaint brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to names, contact information, Social Security numbers ("personally identifying information") and medical treatment information, which is protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. This class action arises from the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from East River's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, says the suit. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect patients' and employees' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the data breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit contends. East River Medical Imaging, P.C. is a privately owned, independent, multi-modality radiology center in New York City on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and in White Plains, Westchester County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com ESTEE LAUDER: Averts Class Action Over Virtual "Try-on" Tool ------------------------------------------------------------ Diana Novak Jones, writing for Reuters, reports that Estee Lauder and several of its well-known cosmetics brands on Jan. 10 dodged a proposed class action claiming its virtual "try-on" tool violates Illinois' biometric privacy law, after a judge said the plaintiffs provided no proof that the company could connect facial scans to customers' identities. U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins in Chicago granted Estee Lauder Companies' motion to dismiss the lawsuit, brought under a stringent Illinois biometric privacy law that sets standards for companies collecting and storing information like retina scans, facial geometry and fingerprints. The judge's decision said the customers could file an amended complaint. The lawsuit accused Estee Lauder and its brands Bobbi Brown, Smashbox and Too Faced of failing to warn customers that their biometric information would be collected when they used tools on the companies' websites that allow people to submit a photo or use a live camera feed to virtually "try on" cosmetics. The lawsuit also named Perfect Corp, a Taiwanese company that makes the technology in question. Jenkins said the four customers who brought the lawsuit hadn't shown how Estee Lauder could connect the facial scans the virtual try-on widgets collect to a person's actual identity. She also dismissed Perfect from the lawsuit, saying the company lacked sufficient ties to Illinois to be sued there. Representatives for the customers, Estee Lauder and Perfect did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN] EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Riley, writing for Law360, reports that Cigna's pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts was slapped with a proposed class action in Washington federal court on Jan. 10 by several locally owned pharmacies who say it conspired with lesser rivals to deflate reimbursement rates paid for prescription drugs and boost service fees. [GN] FLY JAMAICA: Class Action Over Guyana Crash Settled for $5MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Abby O'Brien, writing for CTV News, reports that passengers onboard a flight to Toronto that crashed in Guyana in 2019 have agreed to a $5 million settlement after filing a class-action lawsuit against the airline and airplane manufacturer. On Jan. 10, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a settlement of $5.55 million to be awarded to 84 class-action members, made up of passengers and their families. Individual class-action members can expect to receive $8,000 to $225,000 each, depending on the severity of harm they suffered. Fly Jamaica Flight OJ256 crashed on Nov. 9, 2018 with 120 passengers and eight crew members onboard. Heading for Toronto from Timehri, Guyana, it departed just after 1 a.m. Those onboard claim it left about 40 minutes late after the crew identified an issue with the aircraft's front door. Approximately 20 minutes into the flight, court documents say the pilot informed passengers that the aircraft was returning to Guyana due to a "hydraulic problem." According to one passenger affidavit, "nothing further" was communicated regarding the issue and they were not informed of any sort of emergency. As it attempted to land at the Timehri airport, "the aircraft skidded violently past the end of the runway, through a perimeter fence, and over a sand berm, ripping off its right-hand main landing gear and its right-hand engine," the affidavit reads. "The passenger cabin went dark and ceiling panels came loose falling on several passengers along with other debris, injuring them," the document reads. The passengers, many of whom were crying and screaming, reported a "chaotic" evacuation from the plane, which at that point had begun to fill with dark smoke, according to the lawsuit. Many of the 120 people on board suffered injuries and one passenger, an 86-year-old woman, died in the week following the crash. After disembarking, the passenger claimed it took nearly three hours for medical aid to arrive, during which they were forced to wait on the tarmac in the dark. It wasn't until eight hours after the crash that they were able to speak to an airline representative and given access to the airport restaurant, the lawsuit claims. Fly Jamaica Airways ceased operations in 2021 after declaring bankruptcy. CTV News Toronto reached out to legal representation for the former airline, along with Boeing, for further comment but did not receive a response from either by publication. In an affadavit sworn to the court, one passenger said the crash has significantly impacted his quality of life. "I continue to suffer from neck pain, shoulder pain, right foot pain, lower back pain, PTSD, anxiety, and depression," he wrote. "My stress and anxiety have impacted my relationship with [my family], as well as my ability to fly or travel." Within a few weeks of the crash, two class-action lawsuits were filed against Fly Jamaica, Boeing, and an unidentified aircraft mechanic on behalf of four passengers from the Toronto area. The lawsuits eventually proceeded as a single action. The lawsuit alleged the parties were liable for negligence, that the aircraft was in disrepair when it took off, and that the crew had failed to anticipate and properly declare an emergency. On Jan. 11, Valérie Lord, a lawyer representing some of the passengers, said the case "exemplifies why class actions remain an important mechanism for access to justice for Canadians." "We worked very hard to ensure that the agreement would leave no class member uncompensated or undercompensated. Ultimately, the funds provide recovery to real people with legitimate injuries," she said. Out of the 120 passengers onboard, 31 settled directly with Fly Jamaica Airways, and 5 opted out of this action. The remaining 84 were designated as class-action members. [GN] FOX BUILDING: Misclassifies Laborers, Vega Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ DARWIN JIMENEZ VEGA, WILMER ORELLANA, DAVID AGUILERA ALVAREZ, ROBINSON AGUILERA RIVAS, OLVAN CRUZ MEJIA, EDWIN GARCIA MOLINA, JECSON GONZALEZ MACHADO, GERMAN HERNANDEZ CASTRO, CLAUDIA ORELLANA GOMEZ, JONATHAN CASTILLO LOPEZ, FRANKLIN LAINEZ ORDONEZ, THE ESTATE OF MELVIN ORELLANA, JOSE LAINEZ, JUNIOR GONZALEZ, LUIS ORELLANA MARTINEZ, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FOX BUILDING GROUP, INC., FENIX FINISHING, LLC, VEGA'S DRYWALL CONTRACTING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00852 (E.D. Va., Dec. 14, 2023) is a collective and class action suit against the Defendants for unpaid overtime and misclassification in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated FLSA by failing to pay the correct overtime to Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members when they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, were misclassified as independent contractors by Defendants despite not meeting the "Internal Revenue Service guidelines" for evaluating independent contractor status in violation of the state law, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals were hired to work as laborers for Fox through labor brokers Fenix and Vega's. Fox Building Group, Inc. is a construction company based in Onondaga County, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com GIORDANO'S OF KISSIMMEE: Faces Palmquist Suit Over Tip Credit ------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB PALMQUIST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIORDANO'S OF KISSIMMEE, LLC d/b/a GIORDANO'S, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-02386 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 13, 2023) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and the Florida Constitution arising from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant committed federal and state minimum wage violations because it (1) failed to provide servers and bartenders with state and federally mandated notice of tip credit requirements; (2) claimed a tip credit for all hours servers and bartenders worked, including workweeks wherein the total amount of time that servers and bartenders spent performing non-tipped duties and side work was at or in excess of 20% of all of the total work performed; and (3) claimed a tip credit during shifts when servers and bartenders were required to spend more than 30 continuous minutes on side work and other non-tipped duties. As a result, Plaintiff and all similarly situated servers and bartenders have been denied federal and state minimum wages during various workweeks within the relevant time period, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the FLSA putative collective members are/were restaurant servers and bartenders who worked for Defendant within the last three years at its restaurant located in Kissimmee, Florida. Giordano's of Kissimmee, LLC owns, operates, and controls a restaurant doing business as Giordano's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 GOURMET CLUB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Stroude Says ------------------------------------------------------------ COLETTE STROUDE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOURMET CLUB INDIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00022 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.bhattinyc.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. GOURMET CLUB INDIA, INC. operates as a restaurant serving authentic Indian food. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com HEALTH-ADE LLC: Faces Class Action Over PFAs in Kombucha Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Mindock, writing for Reuters, reports that beverage maker Health-Ade has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit alleging several of the company's kombucha products contain toxic "forever chemicals." Alanna Morton, a New York resident, filed the lawsuit on Jan. 9 in Manhattan federal court, claiming the company misleadingly marketed and advertised its kombucha as a "health" product even though it tested positive for dangerously high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The lawsuit claims PFAS were found in the company's Ginger Pineapple Belly Reset, Mint Limeade, Cayenne Cleanse, Pomegranate Berry and Strawberry Glow with bamboo extract and biotin products. Morton said she would not have purchased the products had the company included labels indicating the drinks contained PFAS, which are a class of thousands of chemicals used in a wide range of consumer products like non-stick pans and stain resistant clothing. PFAS have been tied to many health issues including cancer, hormonal dysfunction and ulcerative colitis. Health-Ade, a California-based company that sells kombucha and soft drinks, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Jan. 10. The lawsuit said the company misleads consumers by not putting warnings on labels that the drinks contain PFAS, in violation of New York business law. It seeks to represent all consumers in the United States who recently bought the products. PFAS have been dubbed "forever chemicals" because they do not break down easily or quickly in the human body or the environment. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said the chemicals may be in the blood of 97% of Americans. The presence of PFAS in consumer products, drinking water and the environment has led to an increase in lawsuits against companies that manufacture the chemicals or sell products containing them in recent years. Legal experts predict many more lawsuits against consumer companies that produce clothing, personal hygiene products and other products like food wrappers will be filed in the coming year accusing them of failing to disclose their products contain PFAS, continuing a growing trend seen in recent years. Many of the existing cases are in early stages of litigation. Companies defending similar lawsuits have argued that third-party testing of their products was inaccurate and did not actually show the products at issue contain PFAS. Other companies have argued that their labels did not mislead consumers by omitting mentions of the presence of alleged PFAS, since the companies were not aware of it themselves. Legal experts have said the lack of regulations addressing PFAS in consumer products opens the door for companies to argue that they do not have a duty to disclose the presence of the chemicals in their products on labels. The Health-Ade complaint said at least four PFAS compounds were found in the drinks that were tested, and that the chemicals are dangerous "even at very low levels." The complaint alleges PFAS were found in the products at concentrations between 13 and 75 parts per trillion. The case is Morton v. Health-Ade LLC, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 7:24-cv-00173. For the class: Joshua Arisohn, Philip Fraietta and Alec Leslie of Bursor & Fisher For Health-Ade: Not yet available [GN] IDEXX LABORATORIES: Labelle Foundation et al. Sue Over VC+ Failure ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE LABELLE FOUNDATION, INC., ELOISE RESCUE, 4 PAWS KIDDO RESCUE, ANIMALDEFENSERESCUE.ORG, WESTSIDE GERMAN SHEPHERD RESCUE OF LOS ANGELES, INC., AND LISA RITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IDEXX LABORATORIES, INC.; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24STCV00360 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 5, 2024) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to implement and maintain its software, specifically, VC+, to perform in a reliable manner consistent with reasonable standards and specifications and asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of California Unfair Competition Law, and violations of California False Advertising Law against Defendant. IDEXX's algorithm, which automatically merged patient records without warning to VC+ users, caused veterinarians to misdiagnose pets due to inaccurate test results, which led to infectious disease outbreaks and patient death. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class Members by this action seek compensatory damages together with injunctive relief to remediate Defendant’s failures. IDEXX is a medical devices company, focused on developing, manufacturing and distribution of products and provides services for the companion animal veterinary, poultry and livestock, dairy, and water testing markets. It also provides diagnostic and software products and services to veterinary practices worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com - and - Alisa R. Adams, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM 26100 Towne Centre Dr Foothill Ranch, CA 92610-3442 Telephone: (949) 200-8755 Facsimile: (866) 843-8308 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com aadams@dannlaw.com - and - Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com KALAMAZOO AREA: Phillips Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT ----------------------------------------------------------- KWAMARIAN A. PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALAMAZOO AREA CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., a Michigan non-profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01338 (W.D. Mich., Dec. 21, 2023) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and those similarly situated have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's shift differentials and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Kalamazoo, Michigan and was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately January 2021 through September 22, 2023. Kalamazoo Area Christian Retirement Association, Inc. is a Michigan non-profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town 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 KINDER MORGAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINDER MORGAN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 24STCVOOQ85 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 2, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendant as customer service representative. KINDER MORGAN, INC. of Delaware operates as a pipeline transportation and energy storage company. The Company owns and operates pipelines that transport natural gas, gasoline, crude oil, carbon dioxide, and other products, as well as terminals that store petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials like coal and petroleum coke. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 LA SALLE UNIVERSITY: Leonard Sues Over Refusal of Tuition Refund ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASIAH LEONARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00062-JS (E.D. Pa., January 5, 2024) arises from the Defendant's refusal of providing Plaintiff with a prorated refund of tuition or fees tied to its on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester. The Plaintiff lost the benefits of the bargain for services and the experience she paid for but could no longer access or use following the school's transition to remote learning in March 2020. Moreover, by not giving prorated refunds for tuition or fees charged for on-campus education and services not provided, La Salle breached its contracts with its students or was otherwise unjustly enriched, says the suit. Located in Philadelphia, PA, La Salle offers around 40 undergraduate majors and around 40 graduate degree programs and enrolls students from dozens of states and foreign countries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com LEGACY HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, K.L. Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ K.L., an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY HEALTH, an Oregon nonprofit healthcare provider, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01886-SI (D. Ore., Dec. 14, 2023) brings causes of action against the Defendant for (1) breach of confidence; (2) violation of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act - unauthorized interception, use, and disclosure; (3) invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion); (4) breach of implied contract; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) negligence. The Plaintiff brings this case to address Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta or Facebook and Google, Inc., without consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's website, https://www.legacyhealth.org. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and similarly situated patients, the Defendant installed tracking technologies onto its Website, including the login page for the MyHealth Portal and within the MyHealth Portal. These Tracking Tools, including Meta Platforms, Inc.'s Tracking Pixel and Google, Inc.'s Google Analytics tool, track and collect communications with the Defendant via the Website and surreptitiously force the user's web browser to send those communications to undisclosed third parties, such as Facebook or Google, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of value of their Private Information, (iv) statutory damages, and (v) the continued and ongoing risk to their private information. Legacy Health is an Oregon nonprofit healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy S. DeJong, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: tdejong@stollberne.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Glen L. Abramson, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 4502 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com LUNA GROCERY: Fails to Pay OT Premiums, Melo Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ YAN CARLOS CORDERO MELO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. LUNA GROCERY STORE CORP, and MIGUEL LUNA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00099 (E.D.N.Y., January 5, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Earned Safe and Sick Time Act. On and around February 2015, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work, interchangeably, as a cook, counterman, cashier, or floor staff on an as needed basis. Plaintiff's employment with Defendant was terminated on June 16, 2022. Defendants later rehired Plaintiff in July 2022 and Plaintiff worked until October 2023 before he resigned. Allegedly, the Defendants operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek, says the suit. Based in Brooklyn, NY, Luna Deli Grocery Corp. operates as a grocery store providing deli products and produces to retail consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 MAISON SOLUTIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein") reminds investors that a federal securities class action has been filed class on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Maison Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: MSS) Class A common stock in connection with the Company's October 2023 initial public offering ("IPO") or securities between October 5, 2023 and December 15, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares and incurred losses are advised to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses, you may, no later than March 4, 2024, request that the Court appoint you as the lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights. Maison is a specialty grocery retailer offering Asian food and merchandise to consumers in the United States On October 5, 2023, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 2.5 million shares at a price of $4.00 per share and received net proceeds of approximately $10 million The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used for new store acquisitions and expansion including acquisition of 90% equity interests in the Alhambra Store from Grace Xu, spouse of John Xu, the Company's CEO, and Dai Cheong from Mr. Xu, by paying off Small Business Administration federal loans held by each entity in the amount of $2 million and $2.4 million respectively. On December 15, 2023, Hindenburg Research reported allegations noting red flags concerning potential illegal activities. It noted that CEO Xu is the President of J&C International Group, a company which "supports immigration services for high-net-worth Chinese investors", which along with a related entity, Hong Kong Supermarkets, used supermarkets as a front to defraud the EB-5 visa program. These claims are based on two separate lawsuits filed with similar allegations. Furthermore, Hindenburg alleged that the Company's stock was being pumped up in "WhatsApp chat rooms" with screenshots showing "trading plans." On this news, Maison's stock price fell $12.71 per share or 83.6% to close at $2.50 per share. It presently trades below $1.00 per share. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas, and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] MERAKI INSTALLERS: Plenge Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- TED W. PLENGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERAKI INSTALLERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60022 (S.D. Fla., January 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Plenge originally worked for Meraki in a Direct Seller position. On or about March 1, 2021, Meraki promoted Mr. Plenge to the District Manager position. Meraki Installers, LLC is a solar sales and installation company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Warren D. Astbury, Esq. Michael P. Schuette, Esq. CANTRELL ASTBURY KRANZ, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (877) 858-6868 E-mail: wastbury@caklegal.com mschuette@caklegal.com MERCURY SYSTEMS: Artificially Inflates Financial Results, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC., MARK ASLETT, and MICHAEL RUPPERT, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13065 (D. Mass., Dec. 13, 2023) is a federal securities class action that Plaintiff brings on behalf of itself and a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Mercury between December 7, 2020 and June 23, 2023, inclusive, asserting claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Mercury was hyper-focused on achieving its goal of generating $1 billion in revenue and used its acquisition strategy and improper revenue recognition practices to artificially inflate its financial results so that it appeared on track to meet this goal. For example, Mercury transitioned from "point-in-time" to "long-term contracts," which allowed for a greater degree of accounting subjectivity in terms of revenue recognition. By pulling forward long-term contract revenues to boost short-term results, Mercury was able to show a rosy financial picture that simply was not true. Indeed, unbeknownst to investors, those revenues were not sustainable and caused the Company to have inflated unbilled receivables and working capital that it falsely blamed on supply chain issues. Mercury did nothing to alert investors of this transition or the real problems that certain contracts were experiencing at the time, says the suit. The truth about Mercury's struggles was partially exposed in a July 26, 2022 short seller report issued by Glasshouse Research. In reaction to the Report, the Company's share price fell $4.87 per share, or 7.8%, from $62.13 per share on July 25, 2022 to $57.26 per share on July 26, 2022. Then, on June 23, 2023, Mercury shocked investors when it announced that Aslett had abruptly resigned and that the Company's recent strategic review of acquisition alternatives did not result in the sale of the Company. On this news, Mercury's share price declined an additional $3.37 per share, or 9.6%, to close at $31.50 per share on June 26, 2023. In sum, since July 26, 2022 when the Glasshouse Report was issued, Mercury's stock price has declined nearly 50%, to close at $31.50 per share on June 26, 2023, wiping out billions of dollars in market capitalization and damaging investors, the suit alleges. Mercury Systems, Inc. is a technology company that produces component modules and subsystems for the aerospace and defense industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Block, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP Franklin Street Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com - and - Daniel L. Berger, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Lauren J. Salamon, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (610) 722-8501 E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com cmoyna@gelaw.com MOLD RESTORATION: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE HUMBERTO AGUILAR MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLD RESTORATION INC. and MOLD PRO RESTORATION SPECIALIST LLC and DOV GREENBAUM, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09130 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2023) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay his wages owed on a weekly basis, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to furnish with a written wage notice. Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as a demolition worker while performing related miscellaneous manual labor duties for the Defendants from January 2011 until October 2023. Mold Restoration Inc. offers full mold remediation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 MONTREAL, QC: Group of NDG Residents Sues Over July 2023 Floods --------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Ceausu, writing for The Suburban, reports that a group of NDG residents affected by the July 2023 floods are seeking class action status to sue the city of Montreal and CDN-NDG Borough Mayor Gracia Kasoki Katahwa for negligence, willful blindness and bad faith. About 80 millimeters of rain fell on Montreal over a few hours on July 13; some neighborhoods hit much harder than others, including parts of Loyola district where many victims faced municipal responses highlighting the storm's rarity, residents' responsibilities, and climate change. "Climate change is no free pass," says lawyer Charles O'Brien representing applicants, and faulting the city for "not doing their job. Instead, they blame the victims. It's deceitful." Presumed class representative Ilana Grostern and other residents sent some 350 notices to the city within the 15-day claims window, and with few exceptions received rejection letters from Montreal's Bureau des réclamations stating: "an atmospheric disturbance originating from the United States intensified, resulting in exceptional precipitation. These unpredictable weather conditions affected our operations." Then it continued: "Please note that we will not be revising any decisions regarding the storm on July 13, 2023." Out of pocket some $20,000 and looking at $30,000 more, Grostern says when presented with evidence of infrastructure neglect, "the party line denialism on the part of elected officials and bureaucrats was so degrading and demeaning that I didn't want anyone to feel as soiled as I did. So legal system it is." A trial could begin within a year, the action representing some 1,000 Loyola residents in the quadrilateral of Coronation, Côte Saint-Luc, Fielding, and Brock. The suit seeks tens of thousands of dollars for material damages, increased insurance costs and more for each member, as people's health, financial security and home values continued to suffer, and peace of mind remains heavily affected: "When it starts to rain people fear leaving the house, they start sandbagging," says O'Brien. "The stress is unbelievable." The suit will highlight a voluminous, 2012 city-commissioned engineering report recommending $270 million (2012 dollars) in major infrastructure upgrades to ensure city-approved developments like the MUHC super-hospital and others would not overload the system. It figures in a similar pending lawsuit representing some 500 residents against the city and Lachine borough Mayor Maja Vodanovic. "Given Defendants presumed knowledge of the Report" reads the Lachine claim, "these omissions must be considered intentional, justifying punitive and Charter damages." As the Plante administration's point-person on water, Vodanovic told Grostern at August city council that homeowners must upgrade their properties and the city will help, including printing brochures to guide them. Vodanovic would not comment on the matter because it's before the courts. Katahwa told The Suburban "since the July 13 flooding, we have been there for the affected citizens. We understand it was a difficult situation." As the matter has now become a subject of legal proceedings, she said she will "not issue any comments pertaining to the lawsuit for the moment." O'Brien says the city and borough mayors know there is a massive amount of work to do. "They knew about it; they simply didn't do it. They're happy to get tax revenue from development but are not putting money into needed corrections for infrastructure -- some of which dates from the 1890s." He says the city's repeated contention that no city could have handled such flooding is a "crazy, meaningless statement. It's all propaganda, making up stories to not do what they are legally bound to do." Grostern agrees: "The gaslighting and straw-manning I've experienced both personally and at the few borough meetings I made the mistake of attending makes me wonder why anyone bothers to deal with these people. If politicking, personal image, and personal agendas are more important to the people we elect and hire, then let's let a higher authority determine responsibility." As increasing numbers of residents lose insurance or insurance affordability, O'Brien says the city must pay. "If the insurer won't insure, then it's up to the state to pay, or put in place the system to ensure this doesn't happen. The victim does NOT pay." [GN] NASCO: Faces Lu Class Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------- XINDA LU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NASCO and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13078-ADB (D. Mass., Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action arising from the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated highly-sensitive consumer data belonging to Plaintiff and nearly 805,000 Class Members, via a security vulnerability in PSC's software program, MOVEit, which is used by NASCO to exchange sensitive information and files. According to Defendant NASCO, the private information compromised in the data breach included names, demographic information (including addresses, phone numbers, gender, dates of birth), email addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance numbers, medical ID numbers, claim information, medical information (such as diagnosis information), dates of service, treatment and/or diagnosis codes, account information, medical devices or products purchased, and provider/care giver names. The complaint alleges that Defendant NASCO failed to adequately safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive private information that it collected and maintained. Specifically, Defendant NASCO used Defendant PSC's MOVEit software to store and transfer the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, and this private information was compromised as a result of a security vulnerability in the MOVEit software. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and Defendants' failure to reasonably and adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, says the suit. NASCO provides claims administration services to health plan customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Rotman, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 207-0600 Facsimile: (617) 830-8312 E-mail: srotman@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. B. Annabelle Emuze, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com aemuze@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Discloses Personal Info to FB, Myers Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA MYERS, OSCAR RODRIGUEZ, PAUL SUTTON, TREVOR ADKINS, BRENT RISH, DEREK SAMMELMAN, and MARY MARTIN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC. and NASCAR DIGITAL MEDIA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00888 (W.D.N.C., Dec. 21, 2023) is a class action brought pursuant to the Video Privacy Protection Act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons who subscribed to the NASCAR Website, https://www.nascar.com/, owned and operated by Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants do not disclose that subscribers' personal identifying information would be captured by the Facebook Pixel and then transferred to Facebook. The Website does not inform site subscribers or site visitors that their personal identifying information will be exposed, available and readily usable by any person of ordinary technical skill who receives that data. At no point during or after the subscription sign up process -- or anywhere on the Website for that matter -- do Defendants seek or obtain consent for the sharing of subscribers' PII and web watching history, which NASCAR surreptitiously gathered through the use of the Pixel that it chose to employ on the website. The Plaintiffs and other subscribers of the Website have been allegedly harmed as a result of violations of the VPPA. In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to immediately (i) remove the Pixel from the Website, or (ii) add adequate notices, and obtain the appropriate consent from, subscribers. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. is an American auto racing sanctioning and operating company that is best known for stock car racing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Adam Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 20900 NE 30th Ave #417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com NATIONAL REALTOR: Recent Class Actions May Disrupt Housing Market ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Prann, writing for NewsNation, reports that recent class-action lawsuits filed against the largest brokers in the U.S. due to inflated commissions and collusion among agents are rattling the housing industry and could change how Americans buy homes. The National Realtor Association (NAR) has settled paying nearly $2 billion in damages to Missouri homeowners in October 2023. The ruling came after a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 on behalf of 500,000 home sellers, according to The Washington Post. "That whole lawsuit is basically an attack on the American dream," said Tommy Choi, an Illinois realtor. Like other agents across the nation, Choi is reeling from the shock waves after a federal jury in Missouri found the NAR and other real estate organizations guilty of artificially inflating home sale commissions. "The industry has colluded to set high uniform rates for many, many decades," said Stephen Brobeck, senior fellow of the Consumer Federation of America. "The first significant challenge to the collusion are two class action lawsuits filed in Kansas City and Chicago courts." More class action lawsuits, including in New York and Illinois, are scheduled for this year, which could spawn big changes in the industry and loss of revenue for agents. If commission rates were negotiable -- for example, 4% instead of 5.6% or above -- research shows sellers could have saved upwards of $72 billion in 2022. "The rates are just too high. On the sale of a $500,000 house, that's going to cost, in most parts of the country, $25,000 to $30,000 in fees -- that's essentially the price of a new car," Brobeck said. The argument revolves around set commissions, the fees paid by the sellers. The case attacks a standard requirement of around 6% commission. Choi argues the system is not broken and the ruling will break it. Fees are calculated into the value of the home before a showing or a sale. "I have to stand out compared to my competitors. So, the consumer ultimately has that choice to work with whoever they want based on maybe, sometimes it's because someone's going to offer a less of a professional fees and that's what they're focused on. Other times people see the value in someone's resume their experience their skill, but that has not changed. It's common practice for agents to become a member of the NAR, but the plaintiffs argue members are part of a conspiracy to drive up home prices. "I would not be surprised if early next year there is a global settlement. The industry is very eager to get this behind them," Brobeck said. Yet for realtors like Choi, this is all they've ever known. "Right now, it's an even level playing field where the market is set by what a buyer is willing to pay and the sellers are willing to agree to sell," he said. The NAR president Tracy Kasper, who had been in the role for a few months, resigned on Jan. 8 after she received blackmail threats. [GN] NATIONALE-NEDERLANDEN: Settles Class Action for EUR300 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Harkavy, writing for CDR, reports that a 17-year struggle related to insurance products has finally come to an end. Nationale-Nederlanden (NN Group), the Dutch financial-services company, which is a subsidiary of ING Group, announced that it has agreed a final financial settlement with five consumer interest groups representing a class of customers who bought unit-linked insurance products from its subsidiaries. The settlement involves a payment of approximately EUR 300 million to the customers and an end to all legal proceedings related to the issue, which dates back to 2007. Unit-linked insurance products are life insurance policies that invest part of the premiums in funds or other assets. NN Group faced criticism that some of these products did not meet its customers' expectations and were subject to high costs and fees. The interest groups, namely Consumentenclaim, Woekerpolis.nl, Woekerpolisproces, Wakkerpolis and Consumentenbond, claimed that NN Group had misled the customers and violated its duty of care. The settlement covers all customers who are affiliated with one of the interest groups, and who bought unit-linked insurance products from Nationale-Nederlanden, Delta Lloyd or ABN AMRO Levensverzekering. The customers will receive their individual proposals through their respective interest group, and the agreement will be final once 90% of them accept the offer. NN Group expects this process to take until the end of 2024. The settlement follows earlier measures, including some settlement agreements which date back as far as 2008 and which disbursed approximately EUR 1 billion. To cover these latest settlements, NN Group set aside a provision of approximately EUR 360 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. This includes EUR 60 million for hardship cases and customers who are not affiliated with any of the interest groups, and who have not previously received compensation. David Knibbe, CEO of NN Group, said that the settlement was an important result for everyone involved in this long-standing industry issue. He added that NN Group had taken the criticism seriously, and was pleased to provide clarity to its customers and resolve the issue. He also said that NN Group would continue to focus on helping its customers care for what matters most to them. The settlement was reached after several years of legal disputes between NN Group and the interest groups. In 2017, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that NN Group had to compensate some of its customers for the costs of the first premium of their unit-linked insurance products. In 2019, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered NN Group to pay damages to a group of customers who had bought unit-linked insurance products from Delta Lloyd. In 2020, the Rotterdam District Court ruled that NN Group had to disclose the costs and risks of its unit-linked insurance products to its customers. In NN Group v Consumentenclaim and Others, NN Group was represented by Sullivan & Cromwell with additional advice from Goldman Sachs. JP Morgan Securities and De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek served respectively as the financial adviser and legal representative of NN Group's parent company, ING Group. The consumer-interest groups were represented by Stibbe, BarentsKrans, Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten and Beer Advocaten. In November the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal for alleged overcharging by its PlayStation Store. [GN] NEW RIVER: Paris Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------- Rachele Paris, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New River Valley Pizza, LLC and Kevin Shaw, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-00012-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., January 5, 2024) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on New River Valley Pizza Domino's Pizza franchise stores' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, and for unjust enrichment under the laws of Virginia. Plaintiff Paris has worked for Defendants as a pizza delivery driver at the New River Valley Pizza Domino's franchise stores since February 2021. She seeks to represent are current and former delivery drivers employed at the New River Valley Pizza Domino's franchise stores. Allegedly, New River Valley Pizza Domino's franchise stores do not reimburse their delivery drivers based on the actual expenses the delivery drivers incur, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Christiansburg, VA, New River Valley Pizza is a limited liability company that owns and operates Domino's Pizza stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Haddox, Esq. Monica Mroz, Esq. STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW 4227 Colonial Ave. Roanoke, VA 24018 Telephone: (540) 283-0802 E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com monica@strelkalaw.com - and - Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLER LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com NOVA LINES: Gadson Alleges Violation of the Truth in Lending Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN GADSON and PPRP LOGISTICS, LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NOVA LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00009 (N.D. Il., Jan. 2, 2024) alleges violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated the TILA by deducting significant chargebacks from owner-operators' wages without disclosing those deductions in the Defendant's equipment leases, not paying interest on their escrow deductions, not returning their escrow in full, overcharging Plaintiffs for fuel, and not adhering to the terms of the lease. NOVA LINES, INC. is a midwest flatbed trucking company based in Chicago IL dedicated to honesty, safety, and excellent service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. Karen Villagomez, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM 70 W. Madison St., Ste. 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580-0100 Email: cwilmes@hsplegal.com NSC HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Private Info, Nicholas Says ---------------------------------------------------------- TERENCE NICHOLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NSC HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a NSC TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05720-JPB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action arising from the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from NSC's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to names and Social Security numbers. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the personally identifying information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes. NSC Holdings, LLC is a staffing company, with more than 30 offices across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, PC 3535 Piedmont Road Building 14, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com njackson@thefinleyfirm.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com PACIFICORP: Oregon Labor Day Fire Class Action Trial Begins ----------------------------------------------------------- David Siegel, writing for CVN, reports that an Oregon state court jury heard opening statements on Jan. 9 in a class-action trial in which nine plaintiffs who suffered property damage in widespread wildfires over the 2020 Labor Day holiday seek at least $45 million in damages from electric utility PacifiCorp. The trial follows an earlier jury verdict from June of last year, when Berkshire Hathaway-owned PacifiCorp was found liable for the blaze, allegedly due to failing to preemptively deactivate portions of their power grid ahead of a predicted major wind storm. That proceeding, also webcast and recorded by CVN, then set the stage for subsequent trials to determine damages for the roughly 5,000 members of the plaintiff class, all of whom claim they suffered property damage in the fire. The verdict also included an award of $72 million to 17 class representatives, and the total damages for all class members -- including potential punitive awards -- could reach into the billions. PacifiCorp, which disputes the estimated class size of 5,000 members citing that roughly 2,500 lots were damaged in the fire, has appealed the June verdict and maintains they took adequate protective steps ahead of the fire, arguing a mass shutdown like the plaintiff class says was necessary would have negatively impacted first responders and emergency facilities like hospitals. Plaintiff attorney Nicholas Rosinia of Edelson PC asked jurors in his opening statement to award a minimum of $5 million to each of the nine class members but suggested those amounts could reach as high as $25 million per plaintiff in non-economic damages alone. Rosinia painted a dramatic picture of the wildfires, showing images of the charred remains of class members' homes and describing "the deafening roar of the fire, like a freight train." He recounted for jurors how one class member made a risky 30-foot jump from a cliff into river to escape the fast-approaching flames, which Rosinia said another class member described as wall of fire reaching 20-feet high. With PacifiCorp's liability already established, defense attorney Per Ramfjord of Stoel Rives urged jurors to make their decisions based solely on fairly compensating the nine individual plaintiffs for their specific losses and harms. "Punishing Pacific Power is not what this case is about," he said, according to Courtroom View Network's webcast of the trial. Ramfjord did not explicitly offer an alternative suggested amount of damages for each plaintiff, but he did float potential awards in the range of $750k -- $1 million while stressing that each damages claim is unique, and this is "not a one-size-fits-all kind of case." Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Steffan Alexander, who also presided over the trial last June, plans to hold additional "mini-trials" for small groups of class members in February and April. He has indicated he may then order the parties into mediation with the hopes the damages award reached so far could shape a broader resolution for the full roughly 5,000-member class. The plaintiff class is represented by Edelson PC, Keller Rohrback LLP and Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC. PacifiCorp is represented by Stoel Rives LLP and by Hueston Hennigan LLP. The case is James, et al. v. PacifiCorp., case number 20CV33885 in Multnomah County Circuit Court. [GN] PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Artificially Inflates Stock Price, Schoenrock Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- COREY SCHOENROCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC., CHAD RICHISON, and CRAIG BOELTE, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00012-F (W.D. Okla., January 4, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Paycom's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Paycom securities at artificially inflated prices between February 9, 2022 and November 1, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (a) that Paycom had been relying upon a significant, but undisclosed, amount of one-off payroll correction fees to fuel its past outsized revenue growth; (b) that increased adoption of Beti by Paycom's payroll customers was cannibalizing the fees the Company had previously been charging to correct common payroll mistakes and to provide related services; (c) that the increased Beti adoption was decreasing Paycom's gross profit margins; and (d) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about Paycom's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of Paycom securities fell precipitously, as the prior artificial inflation came out of the price over time. As a result of their purchases of Paycom securities and/or sales of Paycom put options during the Class Period, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss, damages, under the federal securities laws, says the suit. Paycom Software, Inc. is a software company, located at 7501 W. Memorial Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Smith, Esq. Dennis A. Caruso, Esq. CARUSO & SMITH, PLLC 2021 South Lewis Avenue, Suite 720 Tulsa, OK 74104 Telephone: (918) 583-5900 Facsimile: (918) 583-5902 E-mail: msmith@carusosmithok.com dcaruso@carusosmithok.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PEPPERIDGE FARM: No Preservatives Label "False," Ward Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- VERONIKA WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00078 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Goldfish Flavor Blasted Baked Snack Crackers products. The Defendant claims that the products have "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives." However, this representation is false and/or misleading because the products contain citric acid, a known artificial preservative commonly used in food products. Had the Plaintiff known that the products contain citric acid, she would not have purchased the products, or, at the very least, would have only been willing to purchase at a lesser price, says the suit. Pepperidge Farm, Inc. is a food company, with its principal place of business located at 595 Westport Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Leslie, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com PIONEER EXPLORATION: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Chavera Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ EMEDE CHAVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER EXPLORATION LLC, ATLAS OPERATING LLC, and YOUNAS CHAUDHARY, Defendant(s), Case No. 4:24-cv-00059 (S.D. Tex., January 5, 2024), seeks to recover back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Chavera as a driller from approximately August 2019 through July of 2022. They required Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours. However, they refused to compensate these employees for their employment in excess of 40 at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were or are employed, says the suit. Pioneer Exploration LLC is a Texas limited liability corporation that operates as an independent oil and gas exploration company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net PROPAK LOGISTICS: Roberts Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE ROBERTS, on his own behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. PROPAK LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 23CV008439 (Filed Nov. 28, 2023) was removed from the California Superior Court, Tehama County, to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California on Jan. 2, 2024. The California Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00003 to the proceeding. The suit asserts the minimum wage violations, overtime violations, meal period violations, rest period violations, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff is bringing a class action on behalf of all current and former employees employed by the Defendant in California within the previous four years of the Plaintiff filing his Complaint. The Plaintiff is also seeking to represent the putative class for alleged wage and hour violations at any time between November 28, 2019, to the date the class is certified. The Plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of a class of nonexempt employees defined as: "All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in California as from four years prior tofiling the case to the date of certification or judgment, whichever is earlier." The Relevant Time Period is defined as "four years prior to filing the case to the date of certification or judgment" or from November 28, 2019 to the present. Propak is a proactive provider of leading-edge logistics, transportation and supply chain management solutions.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rebecca M. Aragon, Esq. Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 E-mail: raragon@littler.com njenkins@littler.com R. JABBOUR & SONS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Colak Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALI COLAK, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R. JABBOUR & SONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00010 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.jabbourlinens.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. R. JABBOUR & SONS, INC. sells luxury bed sheets, comforters, tablecloths, and linen products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com RAUDALES TRUCKING: Franco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ GERARDO ALBERTO PEREZ FRANCO, an individual, on behalf of himself and similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAUDALES TRUCKING LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; SILVIO C. RAUDALES MONCADA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV30396 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 13, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay rest period compensation, failure to pay meal period compensation, failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements, failure to pay wages upon discharge failure to indemnify and illegal deductions from wages, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver between December 18, 2022 through August 22, 2023. Raudales Trucking LLC is an intrastate freight carrier based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818)476-5619 E-mail: contact@slawla.com SCORE MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that Score Media and Penn Gaming, the companies behind the Bet ESPN app, are facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly violating Illinois' biometrics privacy law. The suit accuses the companies of improperly scanning users' faces. The plaintiff, Joseph Faifer, filed the complaint on behalf of himself and others who allegedly have been similarly affected. The lawsuit targets Score Media and Gaming Inc., along with Penn Entertainment, Inc., Penn Sports Interactive LLC, and Penn Interactive Ventures, LLC. These companies are collectively referred to as "Penn Entertainment" in the lawsuit. Faifer alleges that these companies unlawfully collected, used, stored, and disclosed his and other users' personal biometric information. The complaint argues that this practice is in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and seeks to stop these alleged activities. The lawsuit seeks potentially huge damages under BIPA for these supposed violations. The law permits plaintiffs to demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted the BIPA law to define individual violations as each time a user's biometrics are scanned over a period of the preceding five years, not just the first time. The defendants own and operate the ESPN Bet app which was launched in November 2023. To access the app's services, users must create an account which includes submitting a scan of their government-issued ID, as well as a photograph of their face. The complaint doesn't estimate how many Illinois residents may use the Bet ESPN app. The lawsuit, however, seeks to expand the action to include any Illinois residents who used any Penn Gaming app, not just Bet ESPN. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Michael Kozlowski, of Esbrook P.C., of Chicago. [GN] SEA WORLD: Prado Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BREANNA ROMERO RIOS PRADO, an individual, Plaintiff v. SEA WORLD LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-5 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 37-2023-00050010-CU-WT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on December 21, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02326-AJB-KSC to the proceeding. On November 16, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California. The complaint purports to assert claims against Sea World for: (1) pregnancy discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; and (5) wrongful termination in violation of Public Policy. Sea World LLC was founded in 1977. The company's line of business includes the operating of amusement parks and kiddie parks.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tracie Childs, Esq. Michelle N. Gonzalez, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: tracie.childs@ogletree.com michelle.gonzalez@ogletree.com SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Pacific University. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Seattle Pacific University, Case No. 1:23-cv-11237-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seattle Pacific University -- https://spu.edu/ -- is a private Christian university in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal SELKIRK SPORT LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selkirk Sport, LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Selkirk Sport, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11313 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Selkirk Sport -- https://www.selkirk.com/ -- is a leading Pickleball equipment brand. Join the Selkirk Pickleball community today.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal SIKA AG: Vera Construction Sues Over Unlawful Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------- Vera Construction, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sika AG; Sika Corporation; Chryso, Inc.; GCP Applied Technologies, Inc.; Compagnie De Saint-Gobain S.A.; Saint Gobain North America; Master Builders Solutions Admixtures U.S., LLC; Master Builders Solutions Deutschland GmbH; Cinven Ltd.; Cinven, Inc.; The Euclid Chemical Company; RPM International Inc.; And Does 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-05135-KNS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 27, 2023), is brought arising from Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix the prices for: (a) concrete admixtures, (b) cement additives, (c) admixtures for mortar, and (d) products containing or bundled with any of the foregoing (collectively, "CCAs"). CCAs, which can be either in liquid or powdered form, are added to concrete, cement, and mortar before or during the aggregate's mixing with water in order to give the finished product certain qualities, such as reducing the amount of water needed for the aggregate to set, reducing (or increasing) set time, reducing shrinkage, stabilizing or preventing cracking, and inhibiting corrosion. The Defendants agreed to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of construction specialty chemicals--more specifically, numerous "admixture" chemicals added to concrete and mortar to control their setting and curing, and to improve the final product. Defendants issued a series of price increase notices, citing excuses that do not hold water. Behind the scenes, Defendants discreetly alluded in investor communications to their pricing discipline, a coded phrase potentially supporting their collective price increases. Supporting their price-fixing, Defendants consolidated their industry with numerous acquisitions in what an industry writer called "a continuing global concrete admixtures transformation." Defendants' consolidation included billion-dollar transactions and numerous smaller acquisitions, which all enhanced their collective market power. The Defendants' secret agreement came to light this fall when European regulatory authorities announced dawn raids and inspected fourteen companies and two trade associations. The European Commission and U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA") issued the first announcements of these inspections, followed by the Turkish Competition Authority. The CMA stated it was in contact with other authorities, including the United States Department of Justice. Thereafter, a U.K. court issued public orders concerning the search warrants it had issued for the investigation. The CMA's announcement stated it normally published names of targets in an investigation unless such disclosure could prejudice an investigation of CMA or its regulatory partner. CMA declined to release names in that announcement about its investigation. However, before long certain Defendants disclosed that they were cooperating in the investigation, and that contact had been established with the United States Department of Justice, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, Vera Construction L.L.C., is a limited liability company registered in the State of Minnesota with its primary place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Sika AG manufactured and sold CCAs around the World, including in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 985-9800 Fax: (856) 263-2450 Email: cjk@njlegal.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com SOKU RESTAURANT: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soku Restaurant, Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Soku Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09547-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Soku Restaurant, Inc. is a Japanese restaurant.[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 SP PLUS: Murry Class Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CALVIN MURRY, on his own behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. SP PLUS CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 23STCV28978 (Filed Nov. 27, 2023) was removed from Los Angeles County for the Superior Court of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 2, 2024. The California Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00033 to the proceeding. The suit asserts, on a class-wide basis, Minimum Wage Violations; Overtime Violations; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Wage Statement Penalties; Waiting Time Penalties; and Violation of Unfair Competition Law. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek the full unpaid balance of all earned wages including but not limited to minimum wages and overtime wages, and meal and rest premium pay, on behalf of himself and the putative class. The Plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and a proposed class of current and former SP Plus employees "who worked for [SP Plus] in California as from four years prior to filing the case to the date of certification or judgment." SP Plus Corporation is an American provider of parking facility management services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Nikolas T. Djordjevski OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com STANLEY STEEMER: Huber Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley Steemer International, Inc. The case is styled as Marc Huber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stanley Steemer International, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04255-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Stanley Steemer -- https://www.stanleysteemer.com/ -- is an American company that provides carpet cleaning, tile and grout cleaning, upholstery cleaning, hardwood floor cleaning and air duct cleaning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com SUNRUN INC: Fails to Pay Lead Qualifiers' OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN WEAVER, individually and for others similarly situated v. SUNRUN INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00012 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid "time and a half" overtime premium from the Defendant, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Weaver and the other Straight Time Employees regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But SunRun did not pay Weaver and its other Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead, SunRun paid Weaver and its other Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those hours worked after 40 in a workweek (a practice known as "straight time for overtime"), the lawsuit asserts. In addition to not paying Mr. Weaver and the other Straight Time Employees overtime, SunRun also failed to pay them overtime wages at the proper premium rate. Specifically, SunRun paid Mr. Weaver and the other Straight Time Employees "lead approval bonuses," which SunRun intentionally excluded when calculating their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (SunRun's "bonus pay scheme"), says the suit. Mr. Weaver worked for SunRun as a Lead Qualifier from May 2014 until November 2023. The putative collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: All SunRun employees who were paid under SunRun's (1) straight time for overtime pay scheme and/or (2) bonus pay scheme at any time during the past 3 years (the "Straight Time Employees"). SunRun is a home solar and battery installer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: whogg@mybackwages.com TEXAS ASSOCIATION: Martin Sues Over Real Estate Market Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE MARTIN, MARK ADAMS, AND ADELAIDA MATTA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs V. TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., AUSTIN BOARD OF REALTORS, SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF REALTORS, INC., METROTEX ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., HOUSTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, GREATER EL PASO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, GREATER FORT WORTH ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., FORT HOOD AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., FOUR RIVERS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., TEMPLE-BELTON BOARD OF REALTORS, INC., VICTORIA AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., WILLIAMSON COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., AUSTIN/CENTRAL TEXAS REALTY INFORMATION SERVICE, CENTRAL TEXAS MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE, INC., HOUSTON REALTORS INFORMATION SERVICE, INC., NORTH TEXAS REAL ESTATE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., ABA MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., PENFED REALTY, LLC, EBBY HALLIDAY REAL ESTATE, LLC, THE DAVE PERRY-MILLER COMPANY, KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., HEYL GROUP HOLDINGS LLC, THE LOKEN GROUP, INC., HEXAGON GROUP, LLC, DMTX, LLC, KELLER WILLIS SAN ANTONIO, INC., SAN ANTONIO LEGACY GROUP, LLC, DSJMM, LLC, FATHOM REALTY, LLC, SIDE, INC., CITIQUEST PROPERTIES, INC., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., JP PICCININI REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, TEAM BURNS, LLC, ABRE CAPITAL LLC, REALTY AUSTIN, LLC, ATX WIR LLC, THE MICHAEL GROUP, LLC, SQUARE MB, LLC, MARK ANTHONY DIMAS, GREENWOOD KING PROPERTIES II, INC., TURNER MANGUM LLC, MORELAND PROPERTIES, INC., REAL AGENT LLC, RFT ENTERPRISES, INC., ATC METRO PROPERTIES, INC., AND MJHM LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01104 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Sherman Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class consisting of all persons who listed properties on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) in Texas using a listing agent or broker affiliated with one of the Defendants named in this case, and paid a buyer broker commission from November 13, 2019, until the present. According to the complaint, the Defendants leverage their control over MLSs, their agreements with local franchisees and agents, their employee policies, and their active roles within National Association of Realtors and local realtor associations to compel local residential real estate brokers to comply with NAR's regulations, including the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule. The Defendants play a part in implementing the conspiracy by reviewing NAR's Rules and consenting to them at annual meetings, and NAR perpetuates the conspiracy by periodically reissuing its Rules, which include the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule. Additionally, Defendants are involved in the conspiracy by serving on boards and committees that oversee compliance with NAR Rules. The Defendants' conduct, as alleged, has led to the inflation of buyer broker commissions nationwide, causing harm to home sellers in numerous regions. Through Defendants, other NAR members, and additional co-conspirators, NAR conducts business in interstate commerce, engaging in activities that substantially impact interstate trade within the United States, the suit asserts. Texas Association of Realtors, Inc. is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. TAR was founded in 1920 and is composed of over 153,000 realtors and has over 160,000 total members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julie Pettit, Esq. David B. Urteago, Esq. THE PETTIT LAW FIRM 2101 Cedar Springs, Suite 1540 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 329-0151 Facsimile: (214) 329-4076 E-mail: jpettit@pettitfirm.com durteago@pettitfirm.com - and - Michael K. Hurst, Esq. Chris Schwegmann, Esq. Yaman Dasai, Esq. LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3800 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839 E-mail: mhurst@lynnllp.com cschwegmann@lynnllp.com ydesai@lynnllp.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Matthew P. McCahill, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com mmccahill@kaplanfox.com TRANSPORT FOR NSW: Ironbridge Assumes Lead Role in Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Freschia Gonzales, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that Ironbridge Legal has assumed the leading role in a class action filed against Transport for NSW over the WestConnex project. The suit challenges land acquisitions made by the state government in line with the project, which is looking to deliver a 33km traffic-light-free motorway network in Sydney. The firm replaces Quinn Emanuel as the lead plaintiff counsel in the case, which has been brought before the NSW Supreme Court. Since the project's launch in 2018, the WestConnex project has been inundated by disputes concerning the land acquisition practices and property damage, Ironbridge Legal said. The government had acquired land for the M4 widening, the M5 East corridor expansion, and the M4-M5 connection under The Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW). Under this act, the NSW government and quasi-government entities can "compulsorily acquire private land for public purposes," Ironbridge Legal partner Trevor Withane said. "In general terms, whether you want to sell your land or not, the NSW government and its entities can take private land or part of a property for a public purpose," he explained. "It is critical that the rights of landowners are respected by governments, and the governments of Australia comply with the rule of law. To do otherwise would be akin to the kind of objectionable expropriation of land we see in some foreign jurisdictions." Withane highlighted the importance of carefully examining the legality of such acquisitions, especially when the landowners are not compensated as in the case of the WestConnex project. Ironbridge Legal pointed out that the class action is not only looking to secure fair compensation, but also "aims to set a precedent for future projects, ensuring that property rights and legal obligations are duly respected." On 23 November 2023, the firm filed a Further Amended Commercial List Statement with the NSW Supreme Court. Withane is set to take point on Ironbridge Legal's team, supported by Laura Coleclough and Radith Khan. In 2018, Transurban Group-led consortium Sydney Transport Partners first acquired a 51% stake in WestConnex from Sydney Motorway Corporation, a subsidiary that held the interests in the acquired land. Sydney Transport Partners then secured the remaining 49% interest in 2021 for $11.1bn. Withane pointed out that Sydney motorists are "reported to pay over $123bn in tolls by 2060, which will generate substantial revenue for the New South Wales Government and the private road operators." [GN] TRANSUNION RENTAL: Martinez Sues Over Misleading Consumer Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-10678 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2023) is a putative class action seeking to recover damages for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The suit is relevant in the context of consumer reports used for the assessment for housing, as criminal record information can be a significant factor impacting potential adverse action against a consumer applicant, causing devastating impacts on their ability to obtain a home. According to the complaint, the Defendant has produced and sold consumer reports concerning Plaintiff's and the proposed Class members' backgrounds that wrongfully and misleadingly reported 1) a number of incomplete and unidentifiable criminal records on their consumer reports that lack any sufficient identifying information and 2) are not properly associated with these consumers. As a result of TURSS' wrongful reporting, Plaintiff and the Class members' were damaged by, without limitation, suffering defamatory harm to their reputations, impediment to their ability to gain housing, and considerable stress and anguish, says the suit. Transunion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency with primary place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Ave, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Suit Alleges Gender Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY FREDERICK-OSBORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00125 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2024) arises from the company's constructive termination of female employees and older employees who refused to agree to new working conditions designed to result in the culling of female employees from Twitter's workforce in the wake of Elon Musk's acquisition of the company, claiming discrimination under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiff Sydney Frederick-Osborn is an adult resident of San Francisco, CA, where she worked for Twitter from June 2022 until November 2022. Dr. Frederick-Osborn was employed by Twitter as a Staff Software Engineer. Following Musk's purchase of Twitter in late October 2022, Musk immediately began a mass layoff that affected well more than half of Twitter’s workforce, including Plaintiff. However, the data from these layoffs demonstrate that this initial wave of layoffs was discriminatory towards women, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Twitter, Inc. is an American social media company. Its incorporated name is now changed to X Corp. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com UNCLE VINNY'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Hernandez Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. UNCLE VINNY'S ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a UNCLE VINNY'S, HUDSON VALLEY GREENS INC d/b/a UNCLE VINNY'S, and VINCENT BONDI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00092 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a packer by Defendants at Uncle Vinny's located at 641 Timpson Pl, Bronx, NY. His employment was terminated in or around October 2023. Throughout his employment, he was consistently required by Defendants to stay beyond the end of his regular scheduled shift end time. The Plaintiff recalls that as a result of Defendants' request, he routinely worked extra two to three hours each shift, totaling 48.75 to 53.75 hours worked per week. However, Plaintiff was never compensated by Defendants at the proper overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, he never received any spread of hours premium for working more than 10 hours in duration, says the Plaintiff. Based in New York, Unlce Vinny's Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in food manufacturing and distribution business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 UNUM LIFE: Faces Threadgill Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH THREADGILL v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:24-cv-00007-LL-MSB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff and all similarly situated Unum insureds whose claims are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for claim for relief against Unum for breach of fiduciary duty, enforcement, and clarification of Rights. UNUM breached its fiduciary duty via its failure to provide Plaintiff with a full and fair review because of the acts set forth above, and specifically, approving the payment of Short Term Benefits insured by UNUM, which period encompassed the LTD elimination period, where the STD and LTD definitions of disability were indistinguishable, while denying LTD benefits on the ground that she did not suffer from disabling impairments during the entirety of the LTD Elimination Period, says the suit. During the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff became entitled to benefits under the terms and conditions of the Policies. Specifically, while the Plaintiff was covered under the Policies, Plaintiff suffered an illness rendering Plaintiff disabled as defined under the terms of the Policies and became entitled to benefits following the end of the policy(s) elimination period, effective her last date of employment, which was September 12, 2020. The Plaintiff was employed by Flower Bulb, and was a covered participant under the terms and conditions of the Policies at issue in this action. The Policies were insured by UNUM, and UNUM was also the claims administrator and made all decisions to pay or deny benefit claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP WALMART INC: Shoppers Seek to Revive Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Dave Byrnes, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a class of Walmart shoppers asked Seventh Circuit on Jan. 10 to save their fraud case against the world's largest retail chain. The class, represented by an Ohioan who visited a Walmart in the northwest Chicagoland suburbs, claims the chain lists different prices for items on its shelves than what it actually charges customers in the checkout lane. "What does plaintiff allege? That Walmart, the largest retailer in the world, has a widespread pervasive company-wide practice of posting lower prices on its shelves than it charges at checkout," Stanley Bernstein, one of the class' attorneys, argued before a three-judge federal appellate panel on Jan. 10. This price discrepancy, the class argues, is a violation of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case began in August 2022 when the Ohioan shopper, Yoram Kahn, bought snacks from a Walmart in Niles, Illinois, and noticed that his receipt showed marked-up prices for the goods compared to the prices listed at the display racks. He paid $2.28 for a jar of salsa, for example, that was advertised on the store shelf as only costing $2.00. Similarly, he paid $1.88 for a Kit-Kat bar that was listed at $1.64. Though not exactly bank-breaking discrepancies, the increased costs represented 9% - 15% markups. In a federal class action Kahn filed a week later, he argued this was a characteristic of Walmart stores nationwide, and cited instances of state authorities in California and North Carolina issuing five- to seven-figure fines against Walmart over similar checkout price discrepancies. He added that, for such a rich company, even fines in the million-dollar range were insufficient deterrents. "Store-specific fines in the thousands of dollars, and even a statewide $2 million fine -- if and when Walmart is caught, and if and when state agencies elect to investigate -- are not an effective deterrent to this $500-billion corporation. Walmart continues its false, misleading, unfair and deceptive pricing practices unabated," Kahn argued. It was an argument Bernstein echoed before the Seventh Circuit on Jan. 10, pointing out the financial incentives for Walmart even to modestly over-charge customers. "If only 2% of Walmart's products are overpriced . . . and if they're only overpriced by 5%, which is a very, very modest, modest overprice . . . the math works out with a company that does $400 billion of sales per year to be a windfall to Walmart of $400 million per year, taken from consumers and given to Walmart just on overpricing," Bernstein said. The attorney also pointed to an amicus brief from the National Retail Federation, The Food Industry Association and Illinois Retail Merchants Association, which claims that "regulatory schemes developed by government experts consider a store compliant if 98% of items are labeled accurately on the shelf." "This is the plan. This was in the amicus brief," Bernstein argued. "They've confessed!" It was an argument that, among others, a lower federal court didn't buy. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed Kahn's case last March on the grounds that Kahn was given a receipt that displayed his overpayments. Kahn could contest the price discrepancy using the receipt, Ellis reasoned, meaning Walmart had not carried out any intentionally deceptive practice as defined by the relevant state statutes. "Kahn could, and indeed did, use [his] receipt to compare the prices Walmart charged him with the advertised shelf pricing. This comparison revealed the discrepancy and dispelled any potential deception," Ellis wrote in her dismissal order, which Kahn appealed a month later. Daniel Blouin, Walmart's attorney, clung to Ellis' logic. He claimed in Walmart's appellee brief filing that "neither the law nor industry standard require perfection," and on Jan. 10 he deemed Kahn and other customers' overcharges "honest mistakes." "That's the underlying point that they're trying to make throughout this entire lawsuit, is even in a simple situation where an honest mistake is made, my client should be held liable," Blouin said. The attorney further accused Kahn of "shopping for a lawsuit," pointing out that the same day Kahn bought overpriced snacks from the Niles, Illinois, Walmart in August 2022, he also went to a Target down the street to buy overpriced Ritz crackers. Kahn also filed a near-identical class action against Target the same day he filed suit against Walmart, only to voluntarily dismiss the Target suit after it was transferred to Minnesota federal court in 2023. "He was seeking discrepancies here. He was seeking mistakes," said Blouin, with U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, a George W. Bush appointee, seeming to agree. "He was a tester," Sykes said. The other two judges on the appellate panel, the Barack Obama-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge David Hamilton and Joe Biden appointee U.S. Circuit Judge John Lee, seemed more skeptical of Blouin's points. Lee clarified that, at least at the moment, Kahn and his putative class weren't looking to hold Walmart liable for anything per se; they were arguing their allegations were sufficient to overturn the district court's dismissal order. "Those are two very different things," Lee said. Hamilton was even more pointed in his criticism, expressing skepticism that simply offering customers a receipt "washes away all potential for deception." He doubted the average Walmart customer would audit their receipts for discrepancies as closely as Kahn did. "Retailers invest an awful lot of money into researching actual consumer behavior . . . and every cashier I've been around, I'm surrounded by impulse items," Hamilton said. "Candy, gum, magazines, distractions, the latest celebrity divorce and so on, everything to distract me from paying attention to whether scanned prices match what I saw and might remember." Even so, Blouin held to the stance that Kahn's over-charged items were innocent human error by Walmart employees, not a deliberate scheme to defraud consumers. "There is no factual support for any reasonable inference that this is anything other than a mistake," Blouin argued. The trio of appellate judges took the case under advisement, but did not say when they would issue a ruling. [GN] WESTFIELD BANK: Levy & Rondoletto Sue Over Overdraft Fee Assessment ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW LEVY and ANTHONY RONDOLETTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTFIELD BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-30004-MGM (D. Mass., January 5, 2024) arises from the Defendant's routine practices of assessing an overdraft fee on transactions that do not actually overdraw checking accounts; and of assessing more than one insufficient funds fee on the same transaction. The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and seek damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Headquartered in Southwick, Massachusetts, Westfield Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers. It has $2.1 billion in assets and maintains branch locations across Massachusetts and Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq. HACKETT FEINBERG P.C. 155 Federal Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 422-0200 E-mail: jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - David M. Berger, Esq. Tayler L. Walters, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLC 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com tlw@classlawgroup.com WILLIAMSBURG VEGAN: Mediza Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- NAHUEL DAVID MEDIZA and TOMAS ISAIAS MEDIZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WILLIAMSBURG VEGAN CORP. (D/B/A THE VSPOT ORGANIC), WILLIAMSBURG VEGAN CORP. (D/B/A ST. MARK'S COMEDY CLUB), THE V-SPOT RESTAURANT, LLC (D/B/A THE VSPOT), VEGAN WHOLESALE FOODS CORP. (D/B/A THE VSPOT), DANIEL CARABANO, ALEXIS CARABANO, and STEVEN SIMICICH, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09185 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to provide written wage notices and accurate wage statements, failure to pay on a regular weekly basis, and unlawful deductions from tips. Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers, a food runner, and a busser in Brooklyn, New York. Williamsburg Vegan Corp. owns two vegan restaurants and a comedy club in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ZONA RESTAURANT: Reyes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- DERIS REYES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZONA RESTAURANT OUT-EAST CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-09147 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a busboy from August 2022 to October 2023. He alleges the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to furnish wage statements. Zona Restaurant Out-East Corp. operates a restaurant located in Rocky Point, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara V. Messina, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: smessina@romerolawny.com ********* 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 2024. 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 ***