/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240206.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 6, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 27 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Melvin Files Suit in C.D. California ABM INDUSTRIES: Zubieta Sues Over Failure to Pay Employees ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Allen Files Suit in D. Utah AEROSPACE DYNAMICS: Mayfield Suit Removed to C.D. California AINSWORTH 33 LLC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AKCT LLC: Wonders Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wage ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Watts Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit on AAdvantage Terminations ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Callaway Suit Removed to C.D. California APPLE INC: Court Urged to Approve B.C. iPhone Class Suit Settlement ATLAS COPCO: Forte Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BANK OF AMERICA: $1.89MM Settlement in Suarez Suit Has Final Nod BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto's $1.89MM Settlement Has Final Approval BAYER AG: Australian Court Hears Arguments in Roundup Class Suit BEIERSDORF INC: Watts Sues Over False and Misleading Claims BIG EASY FOODS: Dehart Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana BIRD CITY COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLOCK INC: Mora Suit Removed to C.D. California BYD COACH & BUS: De Leon Suit Removed to C.D. California CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Blair-Smith Suit Transferred to D. Nevada CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Saige Suit Removed to C.D. California COLLECTORS CHOICE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COMCAST CABLE: Metzger Files Suit in S.D. Florida COMMUNITY TRUST BANK: Hall Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Segal Suit Transferred to D. Mass. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Reyes Suit Removed to E.D. California CRACKSEAL OF TEXAS: Trujillo Sues to Recover Overtime Wages DELI MANAGEMENT INC: Walker Files Suit in E.D. Texas DMD MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Says DOLLAR TREE INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California DUNKIN' DONUTS: Suit Seeks $5M Damages for Non-Dairy Surcharges ESTEE LAUDER: WVLPTF Sues Over Securities Laws Breach EUROMARKETDESIGNS INC: McMillan Sues Over Deprived Earned Wages EVERLANE INC: Gomberg Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania F&E AVIATION HOLDINGS: Ransome Files Suit in S.D. Florida FACE FOUNDRIE: Gomberg Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania FACTOR75 LLC: Bilbao Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. FANNY NAILS: Huang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages FARFETCH LIMITED: Ragan Suit Transferred to S.D. New York FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Madrigal Suit Removed to C.D. California FIVE KEYS SCHOOLS: Adams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Securities Lawsuit Over Defective Airbags GOOGLE LLC: $90MM Settlement in App Developers Suit Has Final OK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Dempsey Sues Over Illegal Insurance Policy HAWAII: Court Dismisses Retiree Health Benefit Class Suit LIFEGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over IVF Culture Media Recall LOANDEPOT INC: Eggleton Sues Over Unprotected Private Information LOANDEPOT INC: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Apr. 24 MICHIGAN: Court Approves Unemployment Claims Suit for $5-Mil. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Woodard's Class Counsel Awarded $11MM in Fees NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Student Pushes for Racism Class-Action Status NO LIMIT STEAKS: Perta Sues Over Labor Law Breaches OTAY LAKES: To Face False Ads Class Action Despite Injunction Bid QUAKER OATS: Kessler Files Class Action Over Contaminated Products QUAKER WINDOW: Employee Files Class Action Over Data Breach REPUBLIC SERVICES: Pietoso May File 3rd Amended Class Complaint TEN BRIDGES: Court Refuses to Review Summary Judgment in Taie Suit TRUMP CORP: S.D. New York Dismisses Claims in McKoy Class Suit UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Students Got Payouts in Tuition Fee Suit WELLS FARGO: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit Over Fake Job Interviews WILKES COUNTY, NC: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Spicer Suit [*] Securities Class Action Filing Activity Increased in 2023 ********* 23ANDME INC: Melvin Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 23andMe, Inc. The case is styled as David Melvin, J. L., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00487-SK (C.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. 23andMe -- https://www.23andme.com/ -- offers DNA testing with the most comprehensive ancestry breakdown, personalized health insights and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 212-9300 Fax: (415) 373-9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Zubieta Sues Over Failure to Pay Employees ---------------------------------------------------------- Odilia Julieth Leguizamon Zubieta, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ABM INDUSTRIES INC., and RVA HERNANDEZ CONTRACTORS INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00057-REP (E.D. Va., Jan. 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for: failing to pay their employees in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act; misclassifying their employees as independent contractors in violation of Virginia's misclassification law; failing to pay their employees in accordance with the Virginia Overtime Wage Act; and a claim for unlawful retaliation against the Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA. By misclassifying workers, employers are denying their employees from receiving lawful wages and benefits while simultaneously underfunding social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation. A common form of misclassification and wage theft is through subcontractors who fail to follow federal and state wage/hour and misclassification laws. Defendants and their subcontractors have engaged in such conduct, the effect of which is to deny employees their lawfully owed wages and benefits in violation of federal and Virginia wage and misclassification laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff performed labor in the Richmond, Virginia. ABM is in the business of providing janitorial and sanitation workers, like the Plaintiffs, to schools in Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Allen Files Suit in D. Utah --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Academy Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Celeste Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Academy Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00067-JCB (D. Utah, Jan. 25, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Academy Mortgage Corporation -- https://academymortgage.com/ -- operates as a mortgage lenders. The Company offers home financing services such as mortgages and home equity loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yevgen Kovalov, Esq. Jennifer F. Parrish, Esq. James E. Magleby, Esq. MAGLEBY CATAXINOS & GREENWOOD 141 W. Pierpont Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 359-9000 Fax: (801) 359-9011 Email: kovalov@mcgiplaw.com parrish@mcgiplaw.com magleby@mcgiplaw.com AEROSPACE DYNAMICS: Mayfield Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kaleb Mayfield an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AEROSPACE DYNAMICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation; PRECISION CASTPARTS, CORP., an Oregon corporation; EXPRESS SERVICES, INC. d/b/a EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS, a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB 2326322 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00680. The Plaintiff alleges the following twelve causes of action against Defendants on behalf of himself and the putative class: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime; Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code; Rest Break Liability Under Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Maintain Records Required Under Labor Code; Failure to Produce Requested Employment Records Under Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses Under Labor Code; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Ethan Smith, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Phone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-710 Email: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com ethan.smith@bclplaw.com AINSWORTH 33 LLC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ainsworth 33, LLC. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ainsworth 33, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00588 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ainsworth venues -- https://www.theainsworth.com/ -- are multipurpose spaces comprised of full-scale restaurants, bars, lounges, and event areas.[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 AKCT LLC: Wonders Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wage ----------------------------------------------- Howie Wonders, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. AKCT, LLC and RE-AKCT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00246 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought for unpaid minimum wage for all the hours he worked per week and his misclassification as an independent contractor when he worked as an employee and seeking to recover 6 weeks of back wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor instead of as an employee of Defendants. Lastly, Plaintiff asserts a record keeping violation against Defendants under the FLSA. The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA because the company knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay practices were unlawful. Therefore, Plaintiff brings this action to recover back wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff initially began working for the Defendant providing off-duty police protection for AKCT, LLC's customer. AKCT, LLC is a domestic for-profit corporation that may be served through its registered agent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bridget Davidson SPACE CITY LAW FIRM 3603 Sierra Pines Drive Houston, TX 77068 Phone: 713-397-6075 Fax: 713-583-1107 Email: bdavidson@spacecitylaw.com ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Watts Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brigitt Watts, on behalf of her minor child, E.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-10177 (D. Mass., Jan. 23, 2024), is brought arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated highly-sensitive consumer data belonging to Plaintiff's minor child and nearly 1,000,000 Class Members, via a security vulnerability in PSC's software program, MOVEit, which is used by Allegheny County to store and transfer sensitive information and documents (the "Data Breach"). After learning of the Data Breach, Allegheny County waited more than two months to notify affected individuals. As part of conducting its affairs, Defendant Allegheny County acquires, collects, and stores consumers' personal data, including personally identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information"). According to Defendant Allegheny County, the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included: names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or other state identification numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, student identification numbers, medical information (including diagnosis and treatment information), health insurance information, and billing/claim information. Allegheny County failed to adequately safeguard Plaintiff's minor child's and Class Members' highly sensitive Private Information that it collected and maintained. Specifically, Defendant Allegheny County used Defendant PSC's MOVEit software to store and transfer the Private Information of Plaintiff's minor child and Class Members, and this Private Information was compromised as a result of a security vulnerability in the MOVEit software. Based on the notice posted on its website, Defendant Allegheny County admits that Plaintiff's minor child's and Class Members' Private Information was accessed and compromised by an unauthorized third party. The Private Information of Plaintiff's minor child and Class Members was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and Defendants' failure to reasonably and adequately protect the Private Information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff's minor child and Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm, heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers, a class of Private Information which is particularly valuable to identity thieves. Plaintiff's minor child and Class Members have and will continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of their Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Brigitt Watts and her minor child, E.W., are natural persons, residents, and citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in Allegheny County. Allegheny County is a county and government entity located in Southwestern Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Rotman, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 207-0600 Fax: (617) 830-8312 Email: srotman@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit on AAdvantage Terminations -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Foster, writing for Simple Flying, reports that on Monday, January 29, two frequent American Airlines fliers revealed a proposed class action lawsuit against the airline. Per Reuters, both Ari and Shanna Nachison believe that American Airlines accused each of them of fraud for opening up multiple accounts to receive more frequent flyer miles. These accounts were issued under various co-branding arrangements. Some of the accounts that the two frequent fliers opened up included Citibank and Barclays credit cards. Each of the new accounts or credit cards offered sign-up mileage bonuses, so the Nachisons doubled up on these bonuses. Doubled-up credit card bonuses Per the class action lawsuit, both Ari and Shanna took advantage of multiple sign-up bonuses that provide AAdvantage members with additional frequent flyer miles. However, shortly after receiving the bonuses, American Airlines closed both of their accounts. The account closures happened in early 2020. This resulted in Ari losing 564,463 accrued miles and Shanna losing 550,664 accrued miles. In an email to the account owners, American Airlines cited several violations. Per Reuters, the email read that the violations "related to the accrual of ineligible miles and benefits; through fraud, misrepresentation and/or abuse of the AAdvantage Program." However, the Nachisons believe that they did nothing wrong. Some AAdvantage program bonuses prevent multiple sign-up bonuses in a certain time period. However, the accounts that they signed up for, which included Citibank-AAdvantage and Barclays-AAdvantage credit cards, did not have any bonus restrictions. The case, which is registered as Nachison et al. v American Airlines Inc., will be heard in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California. Additionally, the class action lawsuit was created to seek damages for AAdvantage members who had their accounts closed for receiving multiple sign-up bonuses from Citibank-AAdvantage or Barclays-AAdvantage credit cards. American Airlines representatives did not immediately respond for comment. Changes in the AAdvantage program Late last year, American Airlines announced several new changes to the popular AAdvantage program. Major changes to the program occurred in 2022, but these recent changes are smaller yet still significant to the program. Elite status earning thresholds and rewards system for benefits will remain unchanged until 2025. Several new benefits for all AAdvantage members have been introduced. This includes the ability to cancel non-refundable basic economy tickets and receive a partial trip credit and one-day passes for Admiral Clubs. Members also have the ability to buy single-day passes to American Airlines flagship lounges, which are located at Miami International Airport (MIA), Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), and Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). Regular AAdvantage members can also put American Airlines flights on hold for 24 hours, and their trip credit expiration has been changed to one year. The Fort Worth, Texas-based carrier also included several new changes to its upgrade policy. This includes earning miles and Loyalty Points on cash upgrades on American Airlines flights. The airline also expects to offer upgrades with several partner airlines, which have yet to be announced. Currently, American Airlines partners with British Airways and Iberia for flight upgrades. [GN] ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Callaway Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Callaway, Nathan Ross, Khanh Quock Le, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anheuser-Busch Companies LLC, Anheuser-Busch, LLC, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV31182 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00702 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC -- https://www.anheuser-busch.com/ -- is an American brewing company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. APPLE INC: Court Urged to Approve B.C. iPhone Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a judge in British Columbia will decide next month whether to approve a multimillion-dollar settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Apple for allegedly slowing down older model iPhones with its software updates. Lawyers for the company and class members in a lawsuit originally filed in 2018 were in a Vancouver courtroom Monday, urging approval of the settlement, where consumers would receive between $17.50 and $150, depending on the number of claims that are successful. Michael Peerless, a lawyer for the class, told Justice Sharon Matthews that the amounts will be paid out to those who can prove ownership of affected phones that include several iPhone 6 and 7 models. He said the settlement was "hard fought" after "lengthy and difficult negotiations" with the company, and said the amounts proposed to be paid out is "in the range that a consumer should hope for." Peerless told the judge that similar litigation in the United States provided a "valuable road map" during settlement negotiations, which could see Apple pay out a maximum of about $14.4 million to class members. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The settlement agreement would apply for residents in all provinces except Quebec. The U.S. case in California saw the company settle with iPhone users whose devices were throttled by software updates, diminishing the phones' performance and battery life. The California case settlement range was between $310 million and $500 million. Peerless said the claims process will be very "simple," with an online and paper-based option for people to use if they bought devices that had slow performance and battery issues. "It provides real, not massively large, but real monetary benefits. It's not a coupon settlement, this is cash and it offers reasonable recovery for what class members suffered," Peerless said. It would've taken "multiple more years" to get paid out had the case gone to trial, he said, and there'd be no guarantee of success or a bigger payout had they gone that route. "The damages in a case like this are difficult to quantify," Peerless said. "There's no real judicial guidance for something like this. We're never going to have a Supreme Court of Canada trilogy about what damages are for a slowed down smartphone. "But what we were able to do is to negotiate the maximum amount achievable for a very large number of class members in this case," he said. He said notice of the settlement was provided to about nine million class members by email, and 10,000 by physical mail, while also receiving "significant media coverage." Jill Yates, a lawyer for Apple, told the court the company has never admitted wrongdoing. "Apple, throughout, has taken a position that it has done nothing wrong here," she said. "These claims are novel and they are not ones where Apple agrees that anything was wrongfully done." The judge has reserved her decision on approving the settlement until Feb. 21, 2024. [GN] ATLAS COPCO: Forte Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas Copco Compressors LLC. The case is styled as Brittany Forte, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Atlas Copco Compressors LLC, Case No. 24CV061044 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 23, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Atlas Copco Compressors LLC -- https://www.atlascopco.com/ -- offer industrial compressors, vacuum and dewatering pumps, industrial tools and assembly solutions, nitrogen and power generators and light towers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com BANK OF AMERICA: $1.89MM Settlement in Suarez Suit Has Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued final approval to the parties' $1,890,000 settlement in the lawsuits entitled ARIANNA SUAREZ, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01202-LB (N.D. Cal.); IRMA FRAUSTO, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01983-LB (N.D. Cal.). In these putative class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs -- current and former nonexempt California employees at Bank of America -- challenge Bank of America's alleged failure to pay them for their off-the-clock work, provide meal and rest breaks, or reimburse expenses. The Plaintiffs claim violations of the California Labor Code, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and California's Private Attorney's General Act (PAGA) (Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC)). The parties settled both cases and the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and for attorney's fees, costs, and enhancement awards. The Court held a fairness hearing on Jan. 11, 2024. The Court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable and approves the final settlement, including the fees, costs, and enhancement awards. The Court's previous order summarized the history of the two lawsuits and the provisions of the settlement agreement. The Court incorporates those summaries by this reference. There are some differences following completion of the settlement process: there are 16,577 class members rather than the estimated 12,000, the gross settlement amount increased from $1,500,000 to $1,890,000 under the escalator provision, only four class members opted out of the settlement, and no class members objected to the settlement. The Court's preliminary-approval order explained that the Court (1) certified the class for settlement purposes only, (2) approved the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable, (3) approved the class notice, (4) appointed the class representatives, class counsel, and settlement administrator, and (5) consolidated the cases for settlement purposes. The Court notes that no class members objected to the settlement, which further supports settlement approval. Class counsel moved for $630,000 in fees (one third of the settlement amount) and $203,430.31 in costs. The Court awards both amounts. Based on counsel's declarations and the results they achieved in this litigation, Judge Beeler finds that the requested fees are reasonable and appropriate as a percentage of the common fund, supported by a lodestar cross-check. Class counsel also are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. For purposes of this Final Order and Judgment, the Court adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Stipulation for Leave to File Consolidated Complaint and for Settlement and Release of Class and Representative Action Claims filed in the Lawsuits. Bank of America provided notice of the settlement and other information showing compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, to the appropriate federal and state officials on June 8, 2023. Judge Beeler notes that the certification of the Class is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' and the Bank's rights under the Settlement Agreement if the Settlement and this Judgment do not become effective, as provided in the Settlement. The Plaintiffs and all other Participating Class Members have, by operation of this Judgment, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties from all Released Claims as defined by the Settlement Agreement. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and all Aggrieved Employees have, by operation of this Judgment, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties from all Released PAGA Claims as defined by the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs, Participating Class Members, Aggrieved Employees, and the LWDA are enjoined from filing or prosecuting any other cases, claims, suits or administrative proceedings involving Released Claims and/or Released PAGA Claims as applicable. The funds for any check that remains uncashed after one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of issuance will be transmitted by the Settlement Administrator pursuant to governing California law to the State of California Unclaimed Property Fund, to be held there in the name of and for the benefit of such class members under California's escheatment laws. In such event, the Settlement Class Members and Aggrieved Employees whose checks remain uncashed after one hundred eighty (180) days, will nevertheless remain subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment. The Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., is entitled to $70,000 from the Gross Settlement Fund for the costs and expenses of administering the Settlement. In accordance with the Court's previous approval of the PAGA allocation, the $75,000 payment to the LWDA is approved. A payment in that amount from the Gross Settlement Fund will be made by the Settlement Administrator directly to the LWDA. If the Settlement does not become final and effective in accordance with its terms, Judge Beeler says this Judgment will be rendered null and void and will be vacated and, in such event, all related orders entered and all releases delivered in connection herewith also will be rendered null and void. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yeyv8u7zfrom PacerMonitor.com. BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto's $1.89MM Settlement Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an order granting final approval to the parties' $1,890,000 settlement in the lawsuits styled ARIANNA SUAREZ, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01202-LB (N.D. Cal.); IRMA FRAUSTO, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01983-LB (N.D. Cal.). In these putative class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs -- current and former nonexempt California employees at Bank of America -- challenge Bank of America's alleged failure to pay them for their off-the-clock work, provide meal and rest breaks, or reimburse expenses. The Plaintiffs claim violations of the California Labor Code, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and California's Private Attorney's General Act (PAGA) (Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC)). The parties settled both cases and the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and for attorney's fees, costs, and enhancement awards. The Court held a fairness hearing on Jan. 11, 2024. The Court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable and approves the final settlement, including the fees, costs, and enhancement awards. The Court's previous order summarized the history of the two lawsuits and the provisions of the settlement agreement. The Court incorporates those summaries by this reference. There are some differences following completion of the settlement process: there are 16,577 class members rather than the estimated 12,000, the gross settlement amount increased from $1,500,000 to $1,890,000 under the escalator provision, only four class members opted out of the settlement, and no class members objected to the settlement. The Court's preliminary-approval order explained that the Court (1) certified the class for settlement purposes only, (2) approved the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable, (3) approved the class notice, (4) appointed the class representatives, class counsel, and settlement administrator, and (5) consolidated the cases for settlement purposes. The Court notes that no class members objected to the settlement, which further supports settlement approval. Class counsel moved for $630,000 in fees (one third of the settlement amount) and $203,430.31 in costs. The Court awards both amounts. Based on counsel's declarations and the results they achieved in this litigation, Judge Beeler finds that the requested fees are reasonable and appropriate as a percentage of the common fund, supported by a lodestar cross-check. Class counsel also are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. For purposes of this Final Order and Judgment, the Court adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Stipulation for Leave to File Consolidated Complaint and for Settlement and Release of Class and Representative Action Claims filed in the Lawsuits. Bank of America provided notice of the settlement and other information showing compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, to the appropriate federal and state officials on June 8, 2023. Judge Beeler notes that the certification of the Class is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' and the Bank's rights under the Settlement Agreement if the Settlement and this Judgment do not become effective, as provided in the Settlement. The Plaintiffs and all other Participating Class Members have, by operation of this Judgment, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties from all Released Claims as defined by the Settlement Agreement. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and all Aggrieved Employees have, by operation of this Judgment, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties from all Released PAGA Claims as defined by the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs, Participating Class Members, Aggrieved Employees, and the LWDA are enjoined from filing or prosecuting any other cases, claims, suits or administrative proceedings involving Released Claims and/or Released PAGA Claims as applicable. The funds for any check that remains uncashed after one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of issuance will be transmitted by the Settlement Administrator pursuant to governing California law to the State of California Unclaimed Property Fund, to be held there in the name of and for the benefit of such class members under California's escheatment laws. In such event, the Settlement Class Members and Aggrieved Employees whose checks remain uncashed after 180 days, will nevertheless remain subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment. The Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., is entitled to $70,000 from the Gross Settlement Fund for the costs and expenses of administering the Settlement. In accordance with the Court's previous approval of the PAGA allocation, the $75,000 payment to the LWDA is approved. A payment in that amount from the Gross Settlement Fund will be made by the Settlement Administrator directly to the LWDA. If the Settlement does not become final and effective in accordance with its terms, Judge Beeler says this Judgment will be rendered null and void and will be vacated and, in such event, all related orders entered and all releases delivered in connection herewith also will be rendered null and void. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bdhmwnrsfrom PacerMonitor.com. BAYER AG: Australian Court Hears Arguments in Roundup Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hobson, writing for Reuters, reports that an Australian court on Tuesday heard closing arguments in a class action lawsuit alleging that a weedkiller produced by Bayer (BAYGn.DE), opens new tab caused cancer, the first such case in Australia to reach this stage. Bayer has already paid billions of dollars to settle claims that exposure to its glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, damaged health, in most cases by causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer. The company faces more than 50,000 claims in the United States, with the latest ruling requiring it to pay $2.25 billion to a single Pennsylvania man and driving its share price down. The Australian lawsuit is one of relatively few outside the United States and is a test case for the country, where Roundup is widely used. It is against subsidiaries of Bayer and brings together more than 1,000 claimants. If the judge at the Federal Court in Victoria rules in the coming months that Roundup caused lymphoma, the court will then consider whether Bayer was negligent regarding the risks its products posed and should pay damages. Bayer says Roundup and glyphosate are safe. It said it "fully stands behind its glyphosate-based products, which have been used around the world for almost 50 years." Damages are likely to be smaller than in the United States, a spokesperson for Maurice Blackburn, the firm representing the claimants, said. But a Maurice Blackburn lawyer has said each person should get a "significant" sum. The lead claimant is 41-year-old Kelvin McNickle, who says he used Roundup to spray weeds for over two decades on his family's property and while working for a vegetation management company. He developed lymphoma aged 35. His lymphoma recurred shortly before the trial began and he is currently undergoing treatment, Maurice Blackburn said. Four other cases have been filed in Australia. Three have been permanently stayed by the Federal court and the fourth, another class action, has been paused pending the outcome of the McNickle claim, Bayer said. MONSANTO Roundup was originally produced by U.S. agrochemical company Monsanto, which Bayer acquired for $63 billion in 2018. The product has been under scrutiny since the World Health Organization's cancer research agency concluded in 2015 that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans, though without concluding whether it posed a risk in real world use. Bayer agreed in 2020 to pay up to $9.6 billion to settle ongoing Roundup lawsuits in the United States but did not get court approval for an agreement to prevent future cases. Bayer said in its most recent annual report that it faced 31 Canadian lawsuits relating to Roundup, including 11 seeking class action certification. It did not mention any other claims outside the United States. The company has replaced glyphosate with new active ingredients in its products for household use in the United States to reduce the risk of litigation, since most claims have come from home users. It continues to sell glyphosate-based weedkillers to farmers, who rely on it heavily. Regulators including in the United States continue to allow Roundup to be used, with the European Commission last year renewing glyphosate's approval for another 10 years. Bayer has a mixed record defending its product in U.S. courts, winning 10 of the last 16 Roundup trials. [GN] BEIERSDORF INC: Watts Sues Over False and Misleading Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Deon Watts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEIERSDORF INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00527 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2024), is brought on behalf of purchasers of Defendant's Aquaphor branded Lip Repair products (the "Product" or "Products") that claim to contain "No preservatives," which is false and/or misleading because the Products contain sodium ascorbyl phosphate--a well-known preservative commonly used in skin care products. The Defendant's "No preservatives" representation is featured on the Products' labeling in order to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase skin care products that are free from preservatives. Defendant markets its Products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting that the Products do not contain preservatives. Defendant has profited unjustly as a result of its deceptive conduct. Plaintiff therefore asserts claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated purchasers for violation of New York General Business Law breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has purchased the Products on numerous occasions over the past year. The Defendant formulates, advertises, manufactures, and/or sells the Products throughout New York and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. 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 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: 313-303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Erin J. Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Email: eruben@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. Zoe T. Aaron, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (630) 796-0903 Email: hbryson@milberg.com zaaron@milberg.com BIG EASY FOODS: Dehart Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zanolia Dehart, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated person v. BIG EASY FOODS OF LA, LLC, and GULF ISLAND SHRIMP AND SEAFOOD II, LLC, Case No. 0198895 was removed from the 32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, State of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Jan. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00242-DJP-JVM. The Plaintiff claim alleged violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq. Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Jeremy Landry, Esq. Jason Z. Landry, Esq. MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA 338 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Email: lcentola@mbfirm.com - and - Damon J. Baldone, Esq. DAMON J. BALDONE, APLC 162 New Orleans Blvd. Houma, LA 70364 Email: dbaldone@hotmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas J. Gayle, Esq. GAYLE LAW FIRM, LLC 713 Kirby Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Phone: (337) 494-1220 Facsimile: (337) 494-1145 Email: tgayle@gaylelaw.com - and - Scott D. Huffstetler, Esq. Erin L. Kilgore, Esq. Chelsea G. Caswell, Esq. Shearil S. Matthews, Esq. KEAN MILLER LLP 400 Convention Street, Suite 700 P. O. Box 3513 (70821-3513) Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Phone: (225) 387-0999 Facsimile: (225) 388-9133 Email: scott.huffstetler@keanmiller.com erin.kilgore@keanmiller.com chelsea.caswell@keanmiller.com shearil.matthews@keanmiller.com BIRD CITY COMICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bird City Comics, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bird City Comics, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00607 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bird City Comics -- https://birdcitycomics.com/ -- is an online platform to buy Exclusive cover art, slabbed comics and view live shows.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BLOCK INC: Mora Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gilbert Mora, Stacy Dozier, Dianna Perez and Alan Starzinski, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BLOCK, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV30869 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00739-JAK-E. The Plaintiffs allege that Block violated California Civil Code and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by limiting California consumers' right to free speech.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Justin Owens, Esq. Shawn Collins, Esq. Sean Thomas Lobb, Esq. STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH LLP 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422 Phone: (949) 725-4000 Facsimile: (949) 725-4100 Email: jowens@stradlinglaw.com scollins@stradlinglaw.com stlobb@stradlinglaw.com BYD COACH & BUS: De Leon Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cynthia G. De Leon, and all others similarly situated v. BYD COACH & BUS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; BYD MOTORS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; BYD MOTORS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. CVRI2306048 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00158-JGB-DTB. In the Complaint, De Leon asserts four causes of action: wrongful termination in violation of public policy in violation of Labor Code; gender discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California Government Code; pregnancy discrimination in violation of the FEHA, California Government Code; and failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of the FEHA, California Government Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua A. Rodine, Esq. Justin J. Jackson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jrodine@seyfarth.com jujackson@seyfarth.com CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Blair-Smith Suit Transferred to D. Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Monica Blair-Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-22611 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Jan. 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00169-APG-MDC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade Commission Act. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. -- https://www.caesars.com/corporate -- formerly Eldorado Resorts, Inc., is an American hotel and casino entertainment company founded and based in Reno, Nevada that operates more than 50 properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Icee N. Etheridge, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. William G Caldes, Esq. Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-0300 Email: tstokes@oklawpartners.com bcaldes@srkattorneys.com - and - Stanley O. King, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. 231 S. Broad Street Woodbury, NJ 08096 Phone: (856) 845-3001 The Defendants are represented by: Kevin M. McDonough, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Fax: (212) 751-4864 CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Saige Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jacob Saige & Reginald Mcowens, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2306584 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00752. The Plaintiffs base their claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant violated the Labor Code by: failing to pay Plaintiffs and other putative class members minimum wages for time worked; failing to pay Plaintiffs and other putative class members overtime wages for time worked; failing to provide Plaintiffs and other putative class members with meal periods in accordance with California law; failing to provide Plaintiffs and other putative class members with rest periods in accordance with California law; failing to timely pay Plaintiffs and other putative class members during their employment tenure; failing to provide Plaintiffs and other putative class members with accurate itemized wage statements; failing to timely pay Plaintiffs and other putative class members wages owed at separation; failing to reimburse Plaintiffs and other putative class members for necessary business expenses; and engaging in unfair competition. Plaintiffs also seek penalties for alleged violations of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: +1 312 499 6700 Fax: +1 312 499 6701 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com - and – Nick Baltaxe, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7400 Fax: +1 213 689 7401 Email: nbaltaxe@duanemorris.com COLLECTORS CHOICE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collectors Choice Comics LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Collectors Choice Comics LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00508-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Collectors Choice Comics LLC -- https://collectorschoicecomics.com/ -- specialize in witnessing and facilitating comic creator signatures and original art commissions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com COMCAST CABLE: Metzger Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Charles Metzger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity, Citrix Systems, Inc., Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-20251-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/-- incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest American multinational telecommunications and media conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Charles Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive Suite P-300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com COMMUNITY TRUST BANK: Hall Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alicia Hall, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Trust Bank, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-00079 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10204-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Community Trust Bancorp Inc (CTBI) -- https://www.ctbi.com/ -- is a bank holding company that provides a range of business banking, personal banking, and wealth and trust management solutions to individuals, businesses, and institutions through its subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 19 N. Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 821-0656 Fax: (270) 825-1163 Email: jtyson@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: William A. Blue, Jr., Esq. CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH AND PROPHETE, LLP - BRENTWOOD 750 Old Hickory Boulevard, Suite 260-2 Brentwood, TN 37027 Phone: (615) 320-5200 Fax: (615) 810-8060 Email: zblue@constangy.com - and – Christopher Deubert, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 535 Boylston Street. Suite 902 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (201) 410-4125 Email: cdeubert@constangy.com - and – Laura A. Balson, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP - CHICAGO 20 N. Wacker, Suite 4120 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 282-0393 Email: lbalson@constangy.com COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Segal Suit Transferred to D. Mass. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dawn Leonard E. Segal, Christopher Pliha, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corebridge Financial, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-03727 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10215-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Corebridge Financial -- https://www.corebridgefinancial.com/ -- is an American multinational financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER LAW, LLP 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason Anthony Richardson, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 337-5580 Fax: (713) 337-8862 Email: jason.richardson@mhllp.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Reyes Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Martin Reyes, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV011351 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 24, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00092. The Complaint asserts nine causes of action: unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for expenses, failure to provide wages when due, and failure to pay sick pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David D. Jacobson, Esq. Lauren S. Schwartz, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, XA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: djacobson@seyfarth.com lschwartz@seyfarth.com - and – Justin T. Curley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com CRACKSEAL OF TEXAS: Trujillo Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Epifamio Trujillo III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRACKSEAL OF TEXAS, LLC, and MIGUEL HINOJOSA, Case No. 2:24-cv-00021 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought to recover compensation and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and Texas common law. Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members regularly worked (and continue to work) in excess of forty (40) hours per week. During the relevant time period, Defendants have knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each week on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, Defendants' regular practice--including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked recorded hours in excess of 40 (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock")--was (and is) to pay for no more than 8 hours of work each day, regardless of whether more hours were worked and thereby failing to pay for all compensable time Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members actually worked. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members any wages for days in which the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members spent the majority of the day traveling for work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Texas. Crackseal provides road repair services across the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com DELI MANAGEMENT INC: Walker Files Suit in E.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deli Management, Inc. The case is styled as Kristen Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deli Management, Inc. d/b/a Jason's Deli, Case No. 1:24-cv-00027 (S.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Deli Management, Inc. doing business as Jason's Deli -- https://www.jasonsdeli.com/ -- is an American chain of fast casual restaurants founded in 1976 in Beaumont, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elton Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com DMD MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LAREKA JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. DMD MANAGEMENT, INC. dba LEGACY HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00140 (N.D. Ohio, January 24, 2024) is a class action challenging Defendant's timekeeping and pay practices by which it willfully violated its employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio's common law of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 2022 through November 13, 2023 as a state testing nursing assistant, a position that was paid on an hourly basis and was non-exempt from overtime pay. Defendant regularly schedule employees, including Plaintiff, to work 40 hours or more per workweek. By company-wide policy, Defendant required Plaintiff to clock out for meal breaks, whether taken or not. For shifts over five hours and less than eight hours, a half-hour meal break deduction was taken whether or not she actually was permitted an uninterrupted meal break. For shifts eight hours or longer, a one-hour meal break deduction was taken whether or not the she actually was permitted an uninterrupted meal break. As a result of said practices, Defendant knowingly deprived Plaintiff and similarly-situated non-exempt employees of regular and overtime pay, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Parma, OH, DMD Management is an integrated business enterprise consisting of 28 skilled nursing, long term care, respite care, assisted living, Broadview Multicare Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. Kathleen Harris, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com katie@tittlelawfirm.com DOLLAR TREE INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dylan Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree, Inc., Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC, Doe Defendants 1-100, Case No. 23CV740 was removed from the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00570-GW-SSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Dollar Tree, Inc. -- https://www.dollartree.com/ -- is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Marta Manus, Esq. Timothy Douglas Cohelan, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 1414 K Street Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 248-8478 Fax: (619) 255-1515 Email: ikhoury@ckslaw.com mmanus@ckslaw.com tcohelan@ckslaw.com - and - Patrick N Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN AND BAKER LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 929-9303 Fax: (760) 929-9260 Email: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth L. Chernof, Esq. ARNOLD AND PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 Phone: (202) 942-5000 Fax: (202) 942-5999 Email: ken.chernof@apks.com - and - Daniel E. Raymond, Esq. Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 583-2300 Fax: (312) 583-2360 Email: daniel.raymond@arnoldporter.com - and - Hannah Renee Coleman, Esq. ARNOLD AND PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 243-4038 Fax: (213) 243-4199 Email: hannah.coleman@arnoldporter.com DUNKIN' DONUTS: Suit Seeks $5M Damages for Non-Dairy Surcharges --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Lagatta, writing for USA Today, reports Dunkin' is being sued for $5 million over claims that the Massachusetts-based coffee chain discriminates against lactose-intolerant customers by charging extra for non-dairy milk. Filed Dec. 26, the complaint claims that customers seeking non-dairy alternatives like soy, almond or oat milk in their Dunkin' drinks may pay as much as $2.15 extra. Attorneys representing 10 plaintiffs who are either lactose intolerant or who have milk allergies argue that the surcharge for the substitutions is a form of discrimination that violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dunkin', which earned $250 million in revenue between 2018 and 2023, has made substantial profits after it "created a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk," the lawsuit states. It goes on to argue that there exists "no material difference between the price of lactose-containing milks and the price of Non-Dairy Alternatives." Dunkin' has until March 4 to respond to the complaint, court records show. The company did not immediately respond Tuesday to USA TODAY's request for comment and no attorneys were yet listed for Dunkin' in court records. The class action lawsuit filed Dec. 26 in U.S. District Court in Northern California is seeking $5 million in damages from Dunkin' on behalf of all the chain's customers who have sought non-dairy substitutions. Between 2018 and 2023, customers who asked that regular milk be substituted with products like soy, oat, coconut or almond milk were charged anywhere from 50 cents to $2.15 extra, according to the complaint. At the same time, Dunkin', which reportedly sells roughly 3 million coffee drinks per day, will modify its beverages at no extra cost for those seeking drinks with whole milk or fat-free skim milk instead of the standard 2% milk, attorneys argued in the complaint. The lawsuit also contends that the company similarly doesn't charge extra to make caffeine-free and sugar-free beverages for those who have conditions like hypertension or diabetes. Attorneys argue that the non-dairy surcharge is not only a federal violation, but also of several state anti-discrimination laws given that lactose intolerance and milk allergies are considered disabilities. "Dunkin’s policy of charging all customers a surcharge for non-dairy milks disproportionately affects persons with lactose intolerance and milk allergies," Bogdan Enica, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement to USA TODAY. "The only choice for this group of people is to pay the surcharge." What is lactose intolerance, milk allergies? Those with milk allergies or who are lactose intolerant would suffer adverse health effects such as stomach pain, gastrointestinal inflammation, bowel issues, bloating and vomiting if they consume dairy products, according to the lawsuit. According to the suit, at least 12% of the population nationwide (and likely more) suffers from lactose intolerance, while more than 15 million people in the U.S. have a milk or dairy allergy. Lactose intolerance occurs in those whose small intestines do not make enough of an enzyme called lactase to break down and digest the sugar in milk known as lactose, according to the Mayo Clinic. Those with dairy or milk allergies experience an atypical immune system response to such products that can manifest as hives, itching, swelling of the tongue or other symptoms, the Mayo Clinic says. For these people, the use of non-dairy alternatives in their beverages "is not a choice" and the plaintiffs named in the complaint must "pay careful attention to the drinks they consume," the lawsuit contends. [GN] ESTEE LAUDER: WVLPTF Sues Over Securities Laws Breach ----------------------------------------------------- West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES INC., FABRIZIO FREDA, and TRACEY T. TRAVIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00468 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Estee's common stock between February 3, 2022 and October 31, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class"). Throughout the Class Period, Defendant misled investors by touting Estee's revenue growth and issuing favorable financial guidance while failing to disclose that: Estee's revenue growth prior to the Class Period was largely driven by purchases made by resellers; stricter regulations on resellers were causing them to purchase fewer Estee products, which was resulting in elevated inventories throughout the supply chain and a sales slowdown for the Company; and these elevated inventory levels were forcing Estee to discount its products in an attempt to reduce inventory, leading to lower revenues and profit margins. The truth began to emerge through a series of disclosures in late 2022 and 2023. As Estee's product sales to resellers slowed down, inventory piled up forcing the Company to repeatedly lower its revenue forecasts which partially exposed the Company's supply chain and inventory issues to investors. The full truth about Estee's issues was revealed on November 1, 2023, when Estee again lowered its financial outlook citing a slower pace of recovery in net sales and profit margins. The Company also announced that it was accelerating and expanding a restructuring plan to recover Estee's profitability. On this news, the price of Estee common stock declined $24.36, or nearly 19 percent, to close at $104.51 on November 1, 2023. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of Estee's stock, Plaintiff and the Class suffered significant losses and damages under the federal securities laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Estee common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. ESTEE is a leading manufacturer and seller of luxury cosmetics, skincare products, and other related goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 8180-0477 Email: ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com EUROMARKETDESIGNS INC: McMillan Sues Over Deprived Earned Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Angel McMillan, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. EUROMARKETDESIGNS, INC. d/b/a CRATE & BARREL, Case No. 601313/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Jan. 23, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA by Defendant, which have deprived Plaintiff and the class of their lawfully earned wages. During Plaintiff's employment, over twenty-five percent of her job duties were physical tasks, including but not limited to walking around the store to greet customers and address their inquiries, operating a cash register, and packing merchandise for customers. Plaintiff was compensated by Defendant on a bi-weekly basis consistently throughout her employment. During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff her wages timely when due. As a result of the untimely payments, Plaintiff forwent the opportunity to invest or otherwise use the money to which they were entitled and they were deprived of the time value of their money, including but not limited to, interest. The Plaintiff's injuries were caused by Defendant, who failed to pay Plaintiff timely each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Hourly Retail Employee in New York. Euromarket Designs, Inc., d/b/a Crate & Barrel, CB2, Crate & Kids, and Hudson Grace is a privately-owned company that owns and operates retail stores selling furniture and home decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Michael Danna, Esq. Amy Maurer, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-245-1000 Email: mbrooks@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com amaurer@outtengolden.com EVERLANE INC: Gomberg Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everlane, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Gomberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Everlane, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00313-TJS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 23, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Everlane -- https://www.everlane.com/ -- is an American clothing retailer that sells primarily online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Glanzberg, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GLANZBERG 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: (215) 981-5400 Fax: (267) 319-1993 Email: david.glanzberg@gtlawpc.com F&E AVIATION HOLDINGS: Ransome Files Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against F&E Aviation Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Rochelle Ransome, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. F&E Aviation Holdings, Inc. doing business as: Feam Aero, Case No. 1:24-cv-20287-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. F&E Aviation Holdings, Inc. doing business as FEAM Aero -- https://feam.aero/ -- is the leading provider of MRO and Aviation Line Maintenance Services throughout the United States and Internationally.[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 FACE FOUNDRIE: Gomberg Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Face Foundrie, LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Gomberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Face Foundri, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00315-KSM (E.D. Pa., Jan. 23, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Face Foundrie -- https://www.facefoundrie.com/ -- is a facial bar that offers facial enhancements, HydraFacial, derma planning, facial cupping, and scalp massage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Glanzberg, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GLANZBERG 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: (215) 981-5400 Fax: (267) 319-1993 Email: david.glanzberg@gtlawpc.com FACTOR75 LLC: Bilbao Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FACTOR75, LLC. The case is styled as Axel Bilbao, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FACTOR75, LLC, Case No. CACE24000960 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 23, 2024). the case type is stated as "Other." Factor -- https://www.factor75.com/ -- is a subscription-based prepared meal delivery service that delivers dietitian-designed, chef-crafted meals.[BN] FANNY NAILS: Huang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lin Lin Huang, and similarly situated employees v. Fanny Nails I Inc d/b/a Fanny Nails Inc and Li Fang Chen, Case No. 502333/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Jan. 23, 2024), is brought against Defendants for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices and to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime compensation; unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day Plaintiff worked an interval in excess of ten hours; damages for failure to pay wages timely; damages for failure to provide a wage notice at the time of hiring; damages for failure to provide wage statements; liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, "spread of hours" premium; prejudgment and/or post-judgment interest; and attorney's fees and costs. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, spread of hours, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek and failure to pay wages timely, as well as failing to provide their employees, including Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a manicurist at Defendants' nail salon store. Fanny Nails I Inc d/b/a Fanny Nails Inc. operates a nail salon store in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Xingyi Li, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 353-8588 Fax: (718) 353-6288 Email: sli@hanglaw.com FARFETCH LIMITED: Ragan Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Ragan, Tamim Altamimi, Yuanzhe Fu, Fernando Sulichin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farfetch Limited, Jose Neves, Elliot Jordan, Stephanie Phair, Case No. 8:23-cv-02857 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00532-PAE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Farfetch -- https://www.farfetchinvestors.com/home/default.aspx -- is an e-commerce company focused on luxury clothing and beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Stephen Sommers, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC (DC) 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - William Emerson Jacobs, Esq. WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC 3000 K Street NW, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 888-1666 - and - Jordan A Cafritz, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th St. NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 774-5795 - and - Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP (B'KLY) 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3052 Fax: (510) 725-3001 Email: lucasg@hbsslaw.com - and - Wayne G. Travell, Esq. HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER 1676 International Drive, Suite 1350 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Phone: (703) 584-8903 Fax: (703) 584-8901 The Defendants are represented by: Andrej Novakovski, Esq. Jason C. Hegt, Esq. Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. Jooyoung Yeu, Esq. Richard Frohlichstein, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Fax: (212) 751-4864 Email: andrej.novakovski@lw.com jeff.hammel@lw.com jooyoung.yeu@lw.com Richard.Frohlichstein@lw.com FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Madrigal Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Madrigal, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ferguson Enterprises, LLC, Does 1 through 25 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV29034 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00733 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Ferguson, LLC -- https://www.ferguson.com/ -- is the largest U.S. distributor of plumbing supplies, PVF, waterworks and fire and fabrication products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Eric David Distelburger PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 856-7100 Fax: (415) 856-7100 Email: ericdistelburger@paulhastings.com FIVE KEYS SCHOOLS: Adams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Keys Schools and Programs, et al. The case is styled as Stephen Michael Adams, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Five Keys Schools and Programs, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC24611827 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 23, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Five Keys -- https://www.fivekeyscharter.org/ -- is a nationally recognized non-profit education management corporation that operates accredited charter schools, Workforce Development, ESL programs, Assessment and Educational Placement, Career Technical Education, Reentry Programs for transitional aged youth and adults at over 80.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paal Bakstad, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd Ste 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Securities Lawsuit Over Defective Airbags --------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, MARY T. BARRA, and PAUL A. JACOBSON, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-CV-10182-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., January 24, 2024) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The securities class action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired General Motors (GM) securities between February 10, 2021 and October 26, 2023, inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by: (1) downplaying safety concerns with the airbags in GM vehicles; (2) failing to disclose the need to record additional warranty accruals for recalls related to the defective airbags; (3) overstating the extent and efficacy of its efforts to analyze defects in its vehicles' airbag inflators; (4) concealing serious safety and consumer protection issues raised by Cruise's AV technology from regulators and investors; (5) overstating the prospect for widespread regulatory approval and adoption of Cruise's AV products; and (6) withholding from investors the true scope of the increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action, significant legal liabilities, product recalls, and reputational harm, says the suit. Headquartered in Detroit, MI, GM is an automotive manufacturing company that designs, builds, and sells trucks, crossovers, cars, and automobile parts worldwide. It primarily manufactures four automobile brands, Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, and Buick, and also holds interests in Chinese brands Baojun and Wuling. Its common stock trades in an efficient market on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "GM." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Eric Belfi, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com - and - Matthew Henzi, Esq. Cynthia Billings-Dunn, Esq. ASHERKELLY 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 746-2710 E-mail: mhenzi@asherkellylaw.com cbdunn@asherkellylaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com GOOGLE LLC: $90MM Settlement in App Developers Suit Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued final approval to the $90 million class settlement in the consolidated lawsuit styled IN RE GOOGLE PLAY DEVELOPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-05792-JD (N.D. Cal.). The antitrust action brought against Google by app developers is a member case in the multidistrict litigation, In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 21-md-02981-JD. The Developer Plaintiffs reached a proposed class settlement with the Google Defendants (Google), which the Court has preliminarily approved. Following a final approval hearing, this Order now resolves the Developer Plaintiffs' motion for final settlement approval, and their motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards. The Court confirms the certification of this class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All former or current U.S. Developers that meet each of the following criteria: (a) sold an application or in-app product (including subscriptions) for a non-zero price between August 17, 2016 and December 31, 2021; (b) paid Google a service fee greater than 15% on at least one such transaction between August 17, 2016 and December 31, 2021; and (c) earned Proceeds between U.S. $0 and U.S. $2,000,000.00 through Google Play in every calendar year between and inclusive of 2016 and 2021. Solely for Settlement Class definition purposes, the 2016 calendar year shall consist of August 17, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Additionally and notwithstanding the foregoing, excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) directors, officers, and employees of Google or its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, as well as Google's legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (b) the Court, the Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which this matter is ever assigned and its staff; (c) Defense Counsel, as well as their immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (d) any Developers who validly request exclusion ("opt out") from the Settlement Class; and (e) any other individuals or entities whose claims already have been adjudicated to a final judgment. Consistent with the preliminary approval order, Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., LittleHoots, LLC, Peekya App Services, Inc., and Scalisco LLC, are confirmed as the class representatives for the settlement class. Judge Donato holds that the certified class, which will be referred to as the Settlement Class, meets the prerequisites to a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). In addition, the Settlement Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to members of the Settlement Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Court also confirms, pursuant to Rule 23(g), that Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sperling & Slater, LLC, and Hausfeld LLP are appointed as Class Counsel. Under Rule 23(e), the claims of a settlement class may be settled only with the Court's approval. The Court finds that approval is appropriate here. Judge Donato says best practicable notice was given to all class members, who would be bound by the Amended Settlement Agreement and Release (Settlement Agreement). A declaration by a project manager at Angeion Group, LLC (the Settlement Administrator) states that the notice plan was carried out through a variety of means, including a settlement website, toll-free hotline, direct email and mail, press releases, internet advertising, and social media notice. Class members were also provided notice directly by Google through a "console" that developers access to manage their Google Play apps. Class Counsel represent that a console message was sent to 40,420 potential Settlement Class Members (out of the more than 47,000 total members), and that Angeion has "delivered direct notice (by email, mail, or both) to approximately 99% of the Settlement Class." Judge Donato opines that final approval is warranted under the Rule 23(e)(2) factors and other factors discussed in the case law, including In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011). The record indicates that the class representatives and Class Counsel are adequate as contemplated by Rule 23, and the settlement was negotiated at arm's length. The settlement provides for a $90 million non-reversionary cash fund, which will be distributed to class members on a pro rata basis without the use of claim forms. Google has agreed to maintain a 15% reduced service fee program on the first $1 million of developer earnings each year through at least May 25, 2025. Google will make changes to the Play Store to improve app discoverability; allow apps downloaded from other Android app stores to automatically update for at least three years; revise its Developer Distribution Agreement so that developers can use contact information obtained in-app to communicate with users out-of-app for a period of at least three years; and for at least the next three years, Google will publish an annual "transparency report" that "(at a minimum) will convey meaningful statistics such as apps removed from Google Play, account terminations, and objective information regarding how users interact with Google Play." Class Counsel estimate that the $90 million cash fund represents 36-38 percent of what the Settlement Class's single damages would have been had they fully prevailed at trial. Counsel note that a victory at trial was not assured, would have required considerable additional time and work to obtain, and even if obtained, would likely have been subject to additional time and risk of reversal at the appellate level. Settlement Class members will receive, without claim forms, payments ranging from $250 to amounts exceeding $200,000. Overall, Judge Donato says the relief provided to Settlement Class members pursuant to this settlement is adequate, and warrants final approval. On the relative treatment of class members, the settlement funds will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Settlement Class Members, based on the dollar value of service fees they paid to Google above the 15-percent level during the Settlement Class Period, with a minimum payment of $250. Aside from the so-called "service awards," the proposed distribution treats class members equally and fairly, and is consistent with the Developer Plaintiffs' theory of liability and damages in this case. Judge Donato notes that the reaction of the class to this proposed settlement has been positive. There are no objections, and eight opt-out requests. The eight opt-outs will be ordered excluded from the settlement. Developer Grace Tang filed an objection to the settlement. She requested, and was granted, permission to speak at the final approval hearing. At the final approval hearing, she agreed to opt out of the settlement. Her objection is consequently deemed withdrawn and is terminated as moot. Class Counsel have requested an attorneys' fee award of $26 million. Counsel state that this request is equal to 24.1% of the Settlement's $112 million quantifiable common fund; if considering the $90 million cash fund alone, Counsel's fee request would amount to 28.8%. The Court finds it appropriate to put a dollar value on a portion of the structural reforms to be provided by the Settlement, as Counsel request. Counsel state that not all of the reforms are quantifiable, but one exception is Google's commitment to maintain a lower 15 percent service fee on developers' first $1 million in annual revenues at least through May 25, 2025. Google has acknowledged that this litigation was a factor in its adoption of the 15 percent program, and the program will save the Settlement Class $109.8 million in fees. Class Counsel state that they conservatively assumed that this litigation was at least 20 percent responsible for the $109.8 million in savings, and have consequently added $22 million to the $90 million cash fund to arrive at a $112 million quantifiable common fund. Judge Donato holds that this is not unreasonable, and Class Counsel's 24.1% fee request from the common fund is within the non-binding and informal guideline that a fee award of up to 25% may be reasonable. The common fund here is not so large that the 25% benchmark should not be applied. In the circumstances of this litigation, the Court approves a relatively modest 1.41 multiplier to arrive at the $26 million award. Judge Donato says twenty-five percent of the fees award will be held back pending further order, to be issued after counsel have filed the post-distribution accounting required by the District's Procedural Guidance on Class Action Settlements. Consequently, $19,500,000 is authorized for disbursement from the common fund upon entry of this Order. Class Counsel have requested reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $4,422,740.98. These amounts have also been documented for reasonable expenses incurred in the normal course of this litigation. Judge Donato grants the requested reimbursement. Class Counsel have also requested $10,000 service awards for each of the named Plaintiffs: Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., LittleHoots, LLC, Peekya App Services, Inc., and Scalisco LLC. The Court has written extensively on these awards, and generally finds that the amounts paid to named Plaintiffs are disproportionate to other class members for little good cause, and so are inconsistent with Rule 23(e)(2)(D). The record here does not support an award of $10,000 to each named Plaintiff. Consequently, in light of the modest additional work they provided, each named Plaintiff is awarded $5,000. The remaining settlement funds are to be distributed pro rata among the Settlement Class members, consistent with the Settlement Agreement, and as expeditiously as possible. The parties will comply with all other provisions of the Settlement Agreement, as well as the District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. Judgment will be entered and the case closed, but counsel can and should file the post-distribution accounting document on the ECF docket when the time comes. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5bvk6744from PacerMonitor.com. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Dempsey Sues Over Illegal Insurance Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reyna Dempsey, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. Government Employees Insurance Company, United Healthcare Services, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00425-VKD (N.D. Cal., January 24, 2024) arises from the Defendants' discriminatory health insurance policy and associated practices that deny equal access to fertility treatment to individuals in non-heterosexual relationships where one partner is attempting to conceive. The Plaintiff was subjected to Defendants' discriminatory policy and practices of requiring her to receive diagnoses, undergo treatments, and/or spend money that heterosexual individuals did not have to receive, undergo, or spend to receive fertility treatments. Accordingly, Plaintiff now brings this action against Defendants for compensatory damages and punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, pre-judgement interest pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 3291, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to California Government Code Section 12965(b) and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, says the suit. Headquartered in Maryland, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) is a private American auto insurance company. The oompany also offers insurance products for motorcycle, ATV, RV, boat, snowmobile, travel, pet, event, homeowner, renter, and jewelry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence A. Organ, Esq. Julianne K. Stanford, Esq. Kira Brekke, Esq. CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP 332 San Anselmo Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Telephone: (415) 453-4740 Facsimile: (415) 785-7352 E-mail: larry@civilrightsca.com julianne@civilrightsca.com kira@civilrightsca.com - and - Matthew C. Helland, Esq. Jasjit Kaur Mundh, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com jmundh@nka.com - and - Anna P. Prakash, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com HAWAII: Court Dismisses Retiree Health Benefit Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- After nearly 18 years of litigation, the Department of the Attorney General has prevailed in a class-action lawsuit in the case of Dannenberg v. State, in which a class of retired government employees sought to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in claims relating to retiree health benefits provided by the Hawai'i Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund (EUTF). Following a lengthy trial, First Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey P. Crabtree today ruled that the defendants in this case -- the State of Hawai'i, the Board of Trustees of the EUTF, the State of Hawai'i, and four Hawai'i counties -- prevailed on all claims and that the class will recover no money in damages. The plaintiffs initially filed their complaint on June 30, 2006. After two appeals to the Hawai'i Supreme Court, on December 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, contending that the EUTF had unconstitutionally diminished accrued retiree health benefits under Article XVI, Section 2 of the Hawai'i Constitution. On June 21, 2019, Judge Crabtree certified a damages subclass that included all employees and their dependent-beneficiaries) who began working for the Territory of Hawai'i, the state of Hawai'i, or any counties before July 1, 2003, and have utilized accrued post-retirement health benefits, along with their estates and heirs. There were approximately 50,000 to 60,000 class members. Trial was held over three years in 2021, 2022, and 2023, and proceeded in two phases. Today, Judge Crabtree issued his Amended and Final Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Phase 2), which denied all of the plaintiffs' claims, and the Final Judgment. Judge Crabtree observed: "This case is remarkable in its scope and depth," and "It is by far the most complex case this judge ever tried." Judge Crabtree also noted that "the health benefits packages for ERS retirees are among the best public employee retirement packages in the United States." The Department of the Attorney General represented the state of Hawai'i, the EUTF, and the Board of Trustees of the EUTF in this litigation. Many deputies attorney general defended their clients in this litigation, including in recent years Supervising Deputy Attorney General John Price of the Complex Litigation Division, Deputy Attorney General Stanley Chow of the Administration Division, and Special Assistant to the Attorney General Dave Day. Since 2018, the Department engaged the local firm of Kobayashi Sugita & Goda (KSG) and Morgan Lewis & Bockius as Special Deputy Attorneys General. Former Attorney General David M. Louie of KSG served as lead counsel at trial and was supported by KSG's Nicholas Monlux and Ryan Louie. "I am thrilled with the result at trial in this important case," said Attorney General Anne Lopez. "This ruling shows that the EUTF and the state have provided and continue to provide world-class health benefits to loyal and valuable government retirees in accord with the mandate of the Hawai'i Constitution. The Department of the Attorney General stands ready to defend the state of Hawai'i and its agencies from claims where the plaintiffs' attorneys seek to recover massive fees to the detriment of the state treasury and the people of Hawai'i." "This is an important victory for the state of Hawai'i, the counties, and the EUTF," said former Attorney General Louie. "The EUTF was created to ensure the future viability and sustainability of the retiree health system, it has done a remarkable job in providing great health benefits to retirees and it will continue to do so. " The Department of the Attorney General will seek to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending this action. The case is Dannenberg v. State of Hawai'i, Civil No. 06-1-1141-06 JPC. [GN] LIFEGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over IVF Culture Media Recall ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group reports that Slater Vecchio LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against LifeGroup Global LLC, The Cooper Companies Inc, CooperSurgical Inc, and CooperSurgical Canada Inc after a recall was initiated due to deficient culture media for In Vitro Fertilization ("IVF") treatments. The class action was filed on behalf of all individuals in Canada whose IVF treatments involved the use of certain lots of growth culture media recalled by the defendants. IVF is a type of assisted reproductive technology used by individuals and couples for reasons including preserving fertility and difficulties with conception. The process involves fertilizing the egg outside of the uterus, allowing the egg to develop, and then freezing or implanting the developed embryo into the uterus. After the egg has been fertilized, it is left in a culture media to help aid in its development. On December 8, 2023, Health Canada published a recall for 3 lots of culture media produced and sold by LifeGroup Global LLC, The Cooper Companies Inc, CooperSurgical Inc, and CooperSurgical Canada Inc. The recall was initiated after high reports of impaired embryo development. The alleged defect relates to a deficiency in magnesium, a component of the culture media crucial to embryo development. Sam Jaworski, a partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, stated, "As a society, Canadians expect assisted reproductive technology to be held to the highest standards. Where these standards have allegedly not been met, the companies involved need to be held to account. This class action allows those who have lost the chance at preservation or conception to pursue collective justice without having to take on the difficulty and expense of individual lawsuits." At least some fertility clinics across Canada have provided their patients with letters, advising them if their embryos had been affected by this recall. Slater Vecchio LLP is looking to speak to individuals who have been personally affected by this recall. If this includes you, please submit your information to our webpage here: https://www.slatervecchio.com/class-action/coopersurgical-ivf-culture-media-recall-class-action/ [GN] LOANDEPOT INC: Eggleton Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL EGGLETON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00170 (C.D. Cal., January 24, 2024) asserts claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff brings this class action individually and on behalf of all other individuals who had their sensitive personal information disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising LoanDepot in early 2024. The Defendant's failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure fell far short of its obligations and Plaintiff's and Class members' reasonable expectations for data privacy jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class member's personal Information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class members fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft, says the suit. Headquartered in Irvine, CA, LoanDepot is a nonbank holding company that sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. The company was founded in 2010 and per its website, LoanDepot is the nation's fifth largest retail mortgage lender and the second largest nonbank retail originator, funding more than $275 billion since inception. It claims to have a nationwide team of 6,000-plus members that assists more than 27,000 customers each month. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com LOANDEPOT INC: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Apr. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ If you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of loanDepot, Inc. ("loanDepot") pursuant or traceable to loanDepot's registration statement filed on January 11, 2021, or during the period March 16, 2021, through September 22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), you could receive a payment from a class action settlement. Certain persons are excluded from the definition of the settlement class as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action"), a Settlement has been proposed for $3,500,000.00 in cash. A hearing will be held on April 19, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Josephine L. Staton, at the United States District Court, Central District of California, 350 West 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, or remotely per details that will be made publicly available on the Settlement website (www.loandepotsettlement.com), for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") should be entered dismissing the Action against all Defendants with prejudice; (3) a Settlement Class of all persons, other than Defendants and other excluded persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired loanDepot Stock pursuant to the Registration Statement or during the Class Period (the "Settlement Class"), should be finally certified for purposes of the Settlement only; (4) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, should be approved and, if so, in what amount; and (6) to award Plaintiffs out of the Settlement Fund pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in what amount. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. Please visit www.loandepotsettlement.com to view and download the detailed Notice of (i) Proposed Settlement, (ii) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses, and (iii) Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release ("Claim Form"). You may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: loanDepot Settlement c/o Claims Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or via email at Info@loanDepotSettlement.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form by mail postmarked no later than April 24, 2024, or submit it online by that date. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein). To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must (1) electronically submit a request for exclusion on the website maintained by the Claims Administrator for the Settlement or (2) mail a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. The exclusion request must be received no later than March 29, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Claim Form. If you submit a request for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds, or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court no later than March 29, 2024. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the following address(es) or telephone numbers: Pomerantz LLP Jeremy Lieberman Jonathan D. Park 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 jalieberman@pomlaw.com jpark@pomlaw.com [GN] MICHIGAN: Court Approves Unemployment Claims Suit for $5-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Michigan Department of Attorney General reports that on Jan, 30, 2024, the Michigan Court of Claims granted final approval of the Class Action Settlement in Bauserman v. State of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency, announced Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Unemployment Insurance Agency, and the law firm of Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Bonanni & Rivers. On October 20, 2022, the Attorney General and the law firm of Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Bonanni & Rivers announced that they had reached a $20 million settlement and the parties submitted preliminary settlement documents to the Court. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled the matter for a fairness hearing. Yesterday the Court conducted a fairness hearing. After reviewing the pleadings and exhibits and conducting the fairness hearing, the Court concluded that the $20 million settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court then signed an Order Granting Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement. Economic and hardship payments can now be made to the Settlement Class Members, and this will occur in the first quarter of 2024. "I am grateful to the court for providing final approval of the Class Action Settlement, which my department and the parties have worked for years to secure," said Nessel. "The Settlement Class Members are now able to begin receiving their monetary relief." "The Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency welcomes the approval of the Bauserman class action lawsuit settlement," said UIA Director Julia Dale. "The lawsuit pointed out the limitations of our existing computer system, which was implemented in 2010 and does not meet the expectations or needs of today's users. A replacement is on the way with the UIA's design of a brand-new computer system to replace the older MiWAM technology. The new system is expected to be fully functional in 2025 using plain language and intuitive, user-friendly design and will allow for quick updates in response to changing user demands and economic conditions." "Class counsel, law firm staff, and our claims administrator worked tirelessly for more than a year to make sure every claimant was heard and properly compensated for the harm caused by the use of algorithms instead of people to adjudicate unemployment claims," said Attorney Michael Pitt. "I am proud of my firm's work, and we all rejoice that this sad chapter in Michigan's history is behind us." [GN] NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Woodard's Class Counsel Awarded $11MM in Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska awards $10,750,000 in attorney fees to Class Counsel in the lawsuit styled KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb.). Judge Rossiter notes that this Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the parties' Stipulation of Settlement (Bankr. D. Neb. Case No. 21-08023-TLS, Filing No. 77-3). Consistent with the Memorandum and Order entered on Jan. 9, 2024, the Court awards attorney fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $10,750,000, which is to be paid from the common fund to Jones Swanson Huddell LLC. Judge Rossiter directs Jones Swanson to allocate the attorney fees solely to Class Counsel (and to no other firm or individual) in a manner in which it in good faith believes reflects the contributions of itself and other Class Counsel to the initiation, prosecution, and resolution of the Litigation. The Court awards the reimbursement of litigation expenses from the common fund to Class Counsel in the amount of $86,562.76, representing actual expenses reasonably incurred by Class Counsel, and necessary for the prosecution of this class action. These litigation expenses will be paid from the common fund to Jones Swanson, which will allocate the litigation expenses solely to Class Counsel (and to no other firm or individual) in the amounts each firm has expended, as reflected in the Declarations in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Class Representative Service Awards. The Court awards the reimbursement of Notice and Administrative Costs from the common fund to the Settlement Administrator in the amount of $500,000. These Notice and Administrative Costs will be paid from the common fund to Jones Swanson, which will then administer them solely to the Settlement Administrator. Judge Rossiter awards Kenneth Joseph Woodard and the following Class Representatives and lead Plaintiffs: Stephanie Mazloom, Kelly K. Coyle, Oscar D. Teran, Michael Shahbazi, and Robert and Molly Crandall (together) in the related actions $15,000 each as class-representative service awards for their substantial participation in their respective lawsuits, which ultimately led to the Settlement being effected through this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3cab993xfrom PacerMonitor.com. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Student Pushes for Racism Class-Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruna Horvath, writing for Washington Square News, reports that a first-year law student who filed a complaint against NYU, accusing it and its Law Review of discriminating on the basis of race and sex, is requesting class-action status for all white heterosexual male students -- current or future -- who intend to apply. The student is accusing the NYU Law Review of providing "preferential treatment" to women, racial minorities and members of the LGBTQ+ community when selecting its editors. If class-action status is granted, the case could impact racial consideration for all future applicants. The student has remained anonymous in the lawsuit since his initial complaint in October, choosing to go by the pseudonym John Doe. He alleged that the journal has violated federal law by considering race and sex, also citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down race-sensitive admissions practices last June, which the university had called "a step backwards." Doe intends to apply for the NYU Law Review this summer, and is demanding a decision before May 10. "This lawsuit's mere conjecture that the NYU Law Review will somehow discriminate this summer amounts to baseless speculation," university spokesperson John Beckman said in a statement to WSN. "Speculation is not enough to bring a federal lawsuit." Federal judge Victor Marrero allowed the student to remain anonymous in a November 2023 decision without providing an explanation. A month later, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law professor Eugene Volokh filed a motion to unseal the document containing the justification for the student's anonymity, which was granted earlier this month. The document noted the possibility of the student facing harassment because "most people at NYU and at NYU Law School do not share Doe's beliefs." The unsealed document also cited the university's response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down race-sensitive college admissions, also known as affirmative action, saying that NYU and its law school have "fully embraced the tenets of 'anti-racism' that call for discrimination against white men such as Doe." "This lawsuit pertains to his personal beliefs and characteristics, and he risks significant retaliation from the NYU Law Review, his peers, his professors, NYU administrators and potential employers if his identity is exposed," the memo reads. "NYU faces no prejudice from Doe's proceeding under a pseudonym, particularly at this early stage of litigation involving legal claims that do not focus on Doe's own facts or credibility." One of the lawyers representing the student in the suit, Gene Hamilton, is Vice President and General Counsel for the conservative organization America First Legal, headed by senior members of former President Donald Trump's administration. Jonathan Mitchell, who is also counsel for the student, represented the group Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences in an unsuccessful lawsuit against NYU Law Review and Harvard Law Review in 2018. Vanderbilt University Law School professor Brian Fitzpatrick said that he thinks the case will be an opportunity to increase discussion on "racial preferences" in higher education. "It would be a gale-force wind in the sails of not only this lawsuit, but others," Fitzpatrick wrote in a statement to WSN. "It would inspire new plaintiffs to help rid higher education of its remaining racial preferences." David Bloomfield, a professor of education leadership, law and policy at Brooklyn College and The City University of New York Graduate Center, said he believes the recent lawsuit is "a ploy for publicity." "I don't see the point of a class action when, as a plaintiff, his individual merits for law review membership could be ascertained," Bloomfield wrote in a statement to WSN. "Further, claiming that most white males in his class -- leaving out their unknown sexual orientations -- will apply to the law review is speculative and unlikely to yield class standing." [GN] NO LIMIT STEAKS: Perta Sues Over Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------- JOSH PERTA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. NO LIMIT STEAKS LLC, d/b/a RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 601342/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., January 24, 2024) seeks to recover from Defendant: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to invalid tip credit; illegally retained gratuities; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. In or around July 2021, Plaintiff Perta was hired as a barback to work at Defendant Ruth's Chris Steak House restaurant, located at 1280 PA-315, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702. His employment was terminated on or about August 31, 2021. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to time shaving policy. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff his proper wages for all hours he worked, says the suit. No Limit Steaks, LLC owns and operates restaurants throughout the United States, including in New York. [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 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 OTAY LAKES: To Face False Ads Class Action Despite Injunction Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Ribakoof, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that claims that a brewery deceives its customers by marketing its line of alcoholic canned kombucha beverages as healthy remain in play in a deceptive marketing class action, though a federal judge in San Diego tossed a request for an injunction Monday. According to Albert Renn, Otay Lakes Brewery -- which markets Nova Kombucha, a line of hard, alcoholic canned kombucha in a wide variety of different flavors -- prints promotional slogans like "Some things in life are good for you, other things in life are fun. They don't meet each other very often, but when they do, life gets pretty brilliant, pretty quickly," on its hip, colorful, maximalist graphic designed cans. Other slogans state "Nova Easy Kombucha is one of those rare things where health, balance and goodness get a lot more interesting," right above the surgeon general's warning alcohol warning label, Renn said in a June 2023 class action. Renn claimed that those slogans fraudulently entice consumers to buy Nova Kombucha because they depict the product as healthy, and good for you, when in fact, Renn claimed, drinking alcohol, in even small amounts, harms your health. Thought to be originally from China, where it spread into Russia and Eastern Europe, kombucha is fermented tea that is often promoted and advertised as having health benefits. Normal kombucha, though not advertised as containing alcohol, usually has around 0.5% from the fermentation process. Hard kombucha is kombucha that a manufacturer has added alcohol to boost its alcohol by volume anywhere between 4% to 8%. Because Renn's complaint hinges on all alcohol consumption being unhealthy, Otay Lakes Brewery had argued that he lacks standing to bring the lawsuit because he can't establish a likelihood of future harm, because he knows their product contains alcohol. Renn responded that he would like to purchase Nova Kombucha in the future, he just can't rely on the company's labeling when comparing it to the relative healthiness of similar hard kombuchas. He would buy the drink again, Renn added, if the health and wellness statements on the can were true. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a Barack Obama appointee, denied injunctive relief to the plaintiff, writing that couldn't establish the possibility of future repeated injury, based on Renn's own representations about the drinks' alcohol content. "Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege he will purchase the products in the future if labeled correctly. In other words, even if the health and wellness representations were removed, he will not likely purchase the products since he was looking for a 'healthy' kombucha drink," Curiel wrote in Monday's order. But Curiel denied Otay Lake Brewery's motion to outright dismiss Renn's claim that the company's slogan and mottos on their cans are fraudulent under California consumer fraud laws. The company argued that their slogans about life getting "pretty brilliant, pretty quickly," and things getting "a lot more interesting" are puffery -- advertising language that no reasonable person would take seriously. Renn countered that phrases like "health, balance" and "good for you" are health-related messages that consumers rely on to make decisions about whether or not they're going to purchase a product, an interpretation that Curiel agreed with. "Here, even though the surgeon general's warning is right below the challenged statements, the court concludes that this is not one of the 'rare situations' where granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate because it cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the labels at issue," Curiel wrote. Attorneys for Renn did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and attorneys for Otay Lakes Brewery declined to comment on Curiel's order. [GN] QUAKER OATS: Kessler Files Class Action Over Contaminated Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports Quaker salmonella class action lawsuit overview: Who: Plaintiff Raymond Kessler filed a class action lawsuit against The Quaker Oats Co. Why: Kessler claims Quaker Oats failed to disclose to consumers that consuming its products allegedly could increase the risk of contracting salmonella. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. The Quaker Oats Co. improperly, deceptively and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to consumers by allegedly failing to disclose that consuming them may increase the risk of contracting salmonella, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Raymond Kessler's Quaker class action lawsuit claims the company failed to disclose that a number of its products allegedly either contain or are at risk of containing salmonella, an issue that led to a December recall that was expanded earlier this month. The Quaker salmonella recall involved a number of Quaker Oats granola products, including chewy granola bars and chewy granola breakfast cereals and snacks. Kessler's class action lawsuit is only the latest to be filed against Quaker Oats in the wake of its salmonella recall. Another lawsuit from earlier in January claimed that the company failed to take necessary steps to ensure their products were safe from salmonella contamination. Consumers trusted Quaker Oats would sell products free of harmful substances, class action says Kessler argues Quaker Oats deceived consumers who trusted the company to sell products "safe and free" from harmful substances, including salmonella. "Plaintiff and those similarly situated . . . certainly expect that the food products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause disease," the Quaker Oats class action states. Kessler wants to represent a New York class of consumers who purchased any of the recalled Quaker Oats products in the state at any time during the applicable statute of limitations. Quaker Oats is accused of violating New York General Business Law. Kessler is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory relief along with an award of monetary, treble and statutory damages for himself and all class members. [GN] QUAKER WINDOW: Employee Files Class Action Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Brigid O'Leary, writing for US Glass Magazine, reports that a former Quaker Window Products employee has filed a class action complaint after an unauthorized user accessed files on Quaker's computer network. According to a Notice of Data Security Incident Report filed by Quaker with Maine's attorney general, the potentially affected information varied by individual but could include names, addresses and Social Security numbers. A data breach notification posted to the attorney general's website says that around 11,000 individuals were affected by the event on Nov. 25, 2023. According to the notice, the company immediately initiated an investigation. Following the data breach, a class action complaint was filed by Kylie Noakes on Jan. 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Noakes accuses the company of failing "to properly secure and safeguard plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' and customers' sensitive information." The complaint alleges Quaker "failed to adequately protect plaintiff's and class members' [personally identifiable information (PII)] -- and failed even to encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information." She alleges that because of the data breach, she and "all others similarly situated" have suffered an "invasion of privacy; theft of PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII." Her representation also alleges that the information that was initially compromised "remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse" and "remains backed up in Quaker's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Quaker fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII" as outlined by the Federal Trade Commission. However, Quaker argues that it immediately engaged cybersecurity experts to assist with the process. Legal documents indicate that by Dec. 22, 2023, the company had identified those whose data had been compromised and "took steps to obtain addresses for those individuals whose information was involved," including contacting them by letter starting December 29. "Quaker takes data security seriously," says Bill Sifflard, Quaker's chief marketing officer. "Upon learning of the network security incident, Quaker acted promptly to minimize any disruption to our operations while investigating and mitigating the effects. During the investigation, Quaker took prompt action to notify anyone potentially affected by the incident and offered them free access to credit monitoring and identity protection services out of caution. Due to pending class action litigation, Quaker has no further comment to provide at this time." Ultimately, the lawsuit alleges negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Noakes and her representation ask for a jury trial to settle the matter. [GN] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Pietoso May File 3rd Amended Class Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit captioned PIETOSO, INC. d/b/a CAFE NAPOLI, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. & ALLIED SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF BRIDGETON, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00397-JAR (E.D. Mo.). Judge Ross notes that Pietoso's pending Motion to Compel and Motion for Entry of Third Amended Scheduling Order will be addressed in further orders. The underlying allegations in this case are described in the Court's Nov. 8, 2021, Memorandum and Order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss. In short, Pietoso operates Cafe Napoli, a restaurant in Clayton, Missouri. It has a Service Agreement for waste removal from the restaurant with Defendant Allied Services, LLC--a subsidiary of Defendant Republic Services, Inc. The Service Agreement sets a basic-service rate of $323 per month, but it allows Allied to unilaterally increase this rate for certain enumerated reasons. All other rate increases require Pietoso's consent. Pietoso's service rate increased incrementally from $323 per month in 2011 to $870.25 per month in 2018. In 2019, Pietoso filed a putative class action complaint in this Court alleging the Defendants improperly increased Pietoso's service rates. The Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in this case, now alleges causes of action against Republic and Allied for Breach of Contract (Count I), Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count II), and Fraud in the Inducement (Count III). In November 2021, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss Pietoso's Second Amended Complaint. Since then, the Court has entered multiple case management orders, and the parties have engaged in discovery. According to Pietoso, some of the information divulged during discovery establishes alternative causes of action for violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and for common law unjust enrichment. Though the deadline to amend the pleadings passed on March 21, 2022, Pietoso claims that it has good cause to file a Third Amended Complaint alleging RICO and unjust enrichment claims, and it moves for leave to amend. The Defendants respond that Pietoso lacks good cause to amend and that addition of the proposed claims would be futile because they fail to state a claim. Pietoso argues that it has good cause to amend its complaint because discovery produced in 2023 sheds new light on the Defendants' involvement in the price increases under the Service Agreement. Throughout this litigation, both Republic and Allied have denied involvement in the imposition of consumer price increases: Republic asserted that its subsidiaries determine the prices charged to customers, and Allied asserted that its local subdivisions determined the prices charged to customers. However, in February 2023, the Defendants produced a document titled "Administrative and Support Services and License Agreement," ("Support Services Agreement") which provides that Republic will perform certain services for its subsidiaries in the capacity of an independent contractor, including calculating recommended customer price increases. Moreover, after the Court granted Pietoso's Second Motion to Compel on March 28, 2023, Republic produced a pricing algorithm it used to calculate the recommended price increases. Pietoso claims that the Administrative and Support Services and License Agreement and the pricing algorithm and support two causes of action that it was previously unaware of. First, it claims that the agreement indicates a relationship among the Defendants that can support a finding that they acted as "enterprise" under the RICO Act. Second, it claims that the Republic's remuneration for its role in inflating consumer prices under the agreement can support a finding that Republic was unjustly enriched at Pietoso's expense. It insists that the addition of these claims will not prejudice the Defendants because they arise out of the same operative facts as the previous iteration of its complaint, and the Defendants have not engaged in any discovery, which would need to be redone or supplemented. The Court agrees that this constitutes good cause. The evidence cited by Pietoso to support its new claims was not produced until well after the Court's deadline to amend the pleadings and only after the Court granted Pietoso's motion to compel and Pietoso's motion to enforce the Court's orders. Though, Judge Ross says, as the Defendants note in their opposition to Pietoso's motion, the Administrative and Support Services and License Agreement was produced in February 2023, the significance of that document and Republic's involvement in calculating and recommending the challenged price increases did not become apparent to Pietoso until several months later (and the Court granted several of Pietoso's discovery motions). The Court does not find that the delay between the Defendants' production of Administrative and Support Service and License Agreement and the current motion to amend evinces a lack of diligence. On the contrary, Judge Ross points out, Pietoso's repeated discovery motions evince a diligent effort to ascertain Republic's role in determining consumer price increases. Because Pietoso has demonstrated that it has good cause to amend the complaint, the Court must consider whether doing so would be futile. The Defendants argue that amendment is futile because neither of Pietoso's claims would withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court agrees that Pietoso's RICO claim would not withstand a motion to dismiss, but it finds that Pietoso's unjust enrichment claim would withstand a motion to dismiss. Count IV of Pietoso's proposed Third Amended Complaint alleges that Republic, Allied, and several other wholly owned subsidiaries of Republic violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c). Count V of Pietoso's proposed Third Amended Complaint alleges that Republic was unjustly enriched. Judge Ross finds that Count IV fails to satisfy Section 1962(c)'s distinctiveness requirement, and thus, Pietoso fails to state a claim under Section 1962(c). Amending the complaint to include this cause of action would, therefore, be futile. The Court, accordingly, denies Pietoso leave to amend to include this count. Missouri law does not permit a plaintiff to recover under both an express contract and for unjust enrichment. But, Judge Ross notes, the fact that a plaintiff cannot simultaneously recover damages for both breach of an express contract and unjust enrichment does not preclude that plaintiff from pleading both theories in the complaint. Even though Pietoso may not recover under both theories, Judge Ross says it may assert unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims in the alternative. And here, Pietoso explicitly alleges its unjust enrichment claim in the alternative. The Court, accordingly, grants Pietoso leave to file an amended complaint to include the unjust enrichment cause of action. Because it would be futile to amend the complaint to include Pietoso's proposed RICO claim, the Court directs Pietoso to refile a proposed amended complaint only including its non-futile claims. Accordingly, the Court rules that Pietoso's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part as described in the Memorandum and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2texa6pxfrom PacerMonitor.com. TEN BRIDGES: Court Refuses to Review Summary Judgment in Taie Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Defendants' motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit titled MARY TAIE, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEN BRIDGES LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00526-JCC (W.D. Wash.). The Defendants moved for reconsideration of the Court's order granting in part and denying in part their motion for summary judgment. Clifford Groves died intestate in 2010, leaving Plaintiffs Mary Taie, Moyra Coop, and William Groves as his only heirs. They inherited their father's home, subject to a deed of trust. In 2014, a foreclosure action was filed in state court against the estate based on this deed of trust. Ms. Taie was named a defendant in the foreclosure action, alongside the "unknown heirs" of Clifford Groves. After a sheriff's sale of the Groves home, the surplus foreclosure proceeds of $135,224.51 remained, and were held on deposit in the state court registry. Defendant Ten Bridges LLC monitored the foreclosure action and when it learned about the sale, reached out to the Plaintiffs and contracted with them to execute quitclaim deeds, selling their rights to the foreclosure surplus proceeds to Ten Bridges for $5,000 each. Though not a party to the state foreclosure lawsuit, Ten Bridges then moved for the King County Superior Court to disburse the funds. That court denied the motion. The state court then ordered Ten Bridges to renote its motion and provide notice to the Plaintiffs. Ten Bridges filed a second motion to release the funds and served the Plaintiffs by mail. The state court then granted Ten Bridges's request. The Plaintiffs later filed this lawsuit as a putative class action against Ten Bridges and its principal, Demian Heald, asserting claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") and Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, along with non-statutory claims, namely conversion, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and abuse of the corporate form. The parties moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Now before the Court is the Defendants' motion for reconsideration of this Court's summary judgment order. Judge Coughenour notes that motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. They are only appropriate where there is manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority, which could not have been brought to the court's attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Here, Judge Coughenour says the Defendants correctly state that the Court failed to address their so-called "lead" argument--namely, that the Plaintiffs' claims are procedurally barred and that this Court's summary judgment order in effect overruled a final, years-old state court order. The Defendants argue that in so doing, this Court flouted well-established principles of federalism, including the doctrine of res judicata. In addition, the Defendants seek reconsideration of this Court's determination that the underlying contracts between Ten Bridges and the Plaintiffs were void ab initio and, thus, remained void after the repeal of RCW 63.29.350. With respect to the status of the agreements between the Plaintiffs and Ten Bridges, Judge Coughenour finds that the Defendants fail to demonstrate manifest error in the Court's reasoning or a showing of new facts or legal authority, as required by LCR 7(h)(1). Instead, the Defendants reiterate arguments that were considered and rejected by this Court. Nevertheless, the Court will consider the Defendants' procedural argument regarding whether the Plaintiffs' action in federal court constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on a prior state court ruling. The Defendants argue that the doctrine of res judicata applies to bar the Plaintiffs' action before this Court. And yet, the Court is presented with no evidence that the issues raised in the Plaintiffs' complaint were fully or fairly litigated in a prior case. In particular, Judge Coughenour opines, the Defendants grossly exaggerate the significance of a King County Superior Court ruling disbursing the at-issue surplus proceeds to Ten Bridges. None of the Plaintiffs' causes of action were ripe at that time, Judge Coughenour says. The formal entry of a disbursement order by the state court was a mere procedural device that did not purport to adjudicate the dispute on the merits. The Defendants further suggest that preclusion is appropriate because the surplus proceeds at-issue were, as a factual matter, the basis of both actions. In Mellor, however, the Washington Supreme Court rejected a similar argument and held that a claim for breach of warranty was not precluded by a prior claim for misrepresentation between the same parties over the sale of the same real property, Judge Coughenour opines, citing Mellor v. Chamberlin 673 P.2d 610, 643 (Wash. 1983). Though the surplus proceeds pertain to both cases, Judge Coughenour explains that the underlying subject matter differs because at the time the state court disbursed the proceeds, the Plaintiffs had not yet been injured. Finally, it must be noted that the Defendants were not parties to the foreclosure suit, Judge Coughenour points out. Indeed, nothing in the record suggests that Ten Bridges intervened as an interested party, attained party status, or won a judgment on the merits. For these reasons, Judge Coughenour denies the Defendants' motion for reconsideration. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y884kbuwfrom PacerMonitor.com. TRUMP CORP: S.D. New York Dismisses Claims in McKoy Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit captioned CATHERINE MCKOY, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE TRUMP CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09936-LGS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action asserting subject matter jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d); federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331; diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c); and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). On July 24, 2019, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part, dismissing the RICO causes of action, the only claims arising under federal law. On Oct. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied. The only remaining claims are the common law and statutory claims of three Plaintiffs arising respectively under the laws of California, Maryland and Pennsylvania where they respectively reside, with total out-of-pocket losses said to be roughly $7,000. At the Court's invitation, the Defendants moved in substance to have this case litigated in another forum -- either in state court by means of the Court's dismissing and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, or by severing the case into three cases and transferring each case to federal court in each Plaintiff's home state. A hearing was held on the Defendants' motion on Nov. 8, 2023. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs argued against severance and transfer, in part claiming that three separate appellate courts would then have to review the two decisions issued before transfer -- the dismissal of the RICO claims and the denial of class certification. An Order dated Nov. 9, 2023, directed the parties to file further briefing on the issue of appeal after transfer and the impact of that issue on whether to keep, dismiss or transfer the action. On Dec. 29, 2023, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants both filed letter briefs as directed by the Nov. 9, 2023 Order. In their letter, the Defendants stated that they were unable to find any authority resolving the issue of appeal after transfer. The Plaintiffs again argued that transfer would create complications and inconsistencies on appeal. Judge Schofield finds that severing and transferring the Plaintiffs' claims to three district courts raises concerns due to the lack of clarity over appellate review. Both parties have indicated a preference for the Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as compared with severance and transfer. Judge Schofield holds that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here promotes the values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity. Even though discovery has been completed and certain motions decided, retaining jurisdiction would not serve economy or convenience. The parties and Court are not yet ready for trial; the Defendants' summary judgment motion on the three states' statutory and common law claims still must be adjudicated, the parties' pre-trial submissions must be filed and decided, a final pre-trial conference must be held and a trial date rescheduled. This case, thus, differs from Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2018), where the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction one day before the final pre-trial conference and a week before the scheduled start date of a three-day trial, Judge Schofield opines. Because this case now involves only three individual Plaintiffs asserting claims under their respective states' laws, Judge Schofield holds that it is not better suited for adjudication in this Court than in state court, particularly those of California, Maryland and Pennsylvania. For these reasons, and in light of the parties' stated preferences and the ambiguities concerning appeal after severance and transfer, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. All pending motions, except the motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 572, 601, 613, 660 and 676, are denied without prejudice. The motions to seal will be addressed by separate order. All court appearances, including trial, are cancelled. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 590, 642 and 659. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/mexyze5wfrom PacerMonitor.com. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Students Got Payouts in Tuition Fee Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Sawicki, writing for Delaware Public Media, reports that University of Delaware students who paid tuition during the pandemic-affected 2020 spring semester are seeing payouts from a class action lawsuit settled last summer. UD agreed to pay $6.3 million as a result of two federal lawsuits filed in October 2020, citing that before the pandemic, tuition for online courses was less expensive than in-person classes. Around $2.35 million will go to attorneys and the five students acting as class representatives in the lawsuit each received $5,000. The remainder of the money is being distributed equally among UD students who do not opt out of the settlement and paid tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester. That payout is about $200. UD issued the same statement made last summer when the lawsuit was settled -- saying it disagrees with the claims but feels resolving the lawsuit is in the best interest of its students -- allowing them to focus on their education. The full statement reads: "The University of Delaware is proud of the integrated efforts of our faculty and staff to successfully transition more than 6,400 class sections from in-person to virtual instruction in Spring 2020 in the face of unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. While we disagree with Plaintiffs' claims, the University determined that resolving this lawsuit is in the best interest of our students and in order to remain focused on our mission to steer students along a fulfilling educational journey to earn their college degrees." [GN] WELLS FARGO: Seeks Dismissal of Class Suit Over Fake Job Interviews ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Gennaro, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that an attorney representing Wells Fargo again asked a federal judge Tuesday afternoon to dismiss a class action complaint against the company that claims some employees conducted fake job interviews to get around the company's diversity guidelines. A Wells Fargo policy required that at least 50% of candidates interviewed for positions that have salaries of more than $100,000 a year were from an underrepresented racial, ethnic, or gender group or were veterans, people with disabilities or members of the LGBTQ community. According to the complaint brought by investors in the company, Wells Fargo's common stock price plummeted after the New York Times published articles in May and June 2022 detailing the interviews. The plaintiffs argued in a hearing in August that Wells Fargo execs knew about the practice of fake interviews, thus the company's statements made in reports and notices filed with the Securities Exchange Commission and press releases, which emphasized the company's commitment to improving workforce diversity, were materially false. However, the complaint was dismissed later that month for failure to plead both falsity and scienter. In the hearing on Tuesday afternoon, Sharan Nirmul, counsel for the plaintiffs, said that the amended complaint satisfies the deficiencies of the first complaint, and implored U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson to allow the case to proceed to discovery. Nirmul said that his team's findings were still largely based on the New York Times articles detailing the practice of sham interviews, but he also conducted an independent investigation interviewing nine former Wells Fargo employees, in addition to introducing four new documents that he said show fake interviews were "systemic" at the company. He said the candidates he interviewed were "geographically diverse" and worked for different departments at the company, and claimed that recruiters told him they were forced to give interviews to minority candidates who had no shot at a job. "We believe taking those allegations together, they strongly corroborate" the New York Times reporting that this was happening during the class period," Nirmul said. Brenden Cullen, representing Wells Fargo, said that the amended complaint contains the same deficiencies as the first complaint and should be dismissed for the same reasons. He said the nine new witnesses don't adequately show how many sham interviews there were, if any, and that the documents that Nirmul possesses are being mischaracterized, and do not contain probable accusations of widespread sham interviews. "We still have no idea how many sham interviews there were" during the class period, Cullen said. Cullen said that Nirmul's documents and witnesses instead contain claims that Wells Fargo employees sometimes hired "preferred candidates," a practice he says is normal. "Just because the hiring manager already has someone in mind, that doesn't mean the process that follows for other candidates is fake. That's pretty routine," Cullen argued. Cullen said a sham interview is an interview that takes place for a job that doesn't exist; an interview where a longshot candidate interviews and doesn't get the job cannot be classified as a fake interview. Cullen said Nirmul needed to show "a way that we can tell the interview was false besides the diverse candidate not getting the job." "Is there a possibility that there could be a fake interview when there's someone in mind? We're going to hold these interviews but we already know [who we're going to hire]?" Thompson asked Cullen. "It's possible," Cullen replied. But the diversity guidelines say to interview a pool of diverse candidates, and there's no proof that Wells Fargo didn't do just that, Cullen said. "We don't think they've added enough with these confidential witnesses to move the needle here," Cullen said, adding there's no proof that any of the witnesses' claims were communicated to senior leadership at Wells Fargo. "We're looking for scienter, we're looking for evidence," Cullen said. "There's no document that shows the number of sham interviews in existence." During rebuttal, Nirmul said that having a preferred candidate when looking to fill a position is "not a normal hiring process." "For all intents and purposes, they believe they're getting a fair shot at the job. Not that there's a favored candidate by the manager," Nirmul said. Nirmul said the totality of evidence presented should allow the case to proceed. Thompson took the matter under submission. [GN] WILKES COUNTY, NC: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Spicer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's amended complaint in the lawsuit titled BRADY LEON SPICER, Plaintiff v. WILKES COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00170-KDB (W.D.N.C.). The matter is before the Court on initial review of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915A and 1915(e). Pro se Plaintiff Brady Leon Spicer is a pretrial detainee currently detained at the Wilkes County Jail in Wilkesboro, North Carolina. He filed this action on Oct. 24, 2023, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, against Wilkes County, North Carolina; Chris Shew, Wilkes County Sheriff; Major Jason Whitley; Captain Shelby Wyatt; and Wilkes County Clerk of Court Regina Billings. He sued the Defendants in their individual and official capacities. The Plaintiff alleged that, from Feb. 3, 2023, to the filing of his Complaint, he had been held "hostage" at the Wilkes County Jail by the Wilkes County Sheriff's Office. He attached to his Complaint numerous documents, the majority of which were wholly irrelevant, but which did show that he was charged in the District Court of Wilkes County, North Carolina, with possession of a firearm by a felon on Feb. 3, 2023. He claimed violation of his rights under the First, Second, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. On initial review, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court noted that his claims, which related to his alleged wrongful detention, appeared to be precluded by Younger. The Court allowed him 30 days to amend his Complaint to properly state a claim for relief that is not precluded by Younger. Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which he purports to bring on behalf of himself and 12 other detainees. The Plaintiff names 13 Defendants, including the Wilkes County Sheriff, various Wilkes County Sheriff's Office employees, parole and probation officers, two District Attorneys, and two Jail doctors, whom he purports to sue in their individual and official capacities. The Plaintiff alleges that his claims arose on Feb. 3, 2023. Judge Bell opines that the Plaintiff's allegations are so meandering and nonsensical to be unamenable to summary here. It seems, however, that his primary complaints relate to various disciplinary incidents resulting in his lock down without privileges and that he is unable to properly groom himself. The Plaintiff purports to proceed under both 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Bivens. He claims "conspire," "Racketeering," "Federal Due of Process, "Right to access courts," "Torture claim," and "Code of Judicial Conduct." For injuries, the Plaintiff claims "mental medical dental." He seeks monetary relief only. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails initial review for several reasons, Judge Bell notes. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is so nonsensical, meandering, and disjointed that it fails to satisfy the most basic pleading requirements, Judge Bell holds. Moreover, it is not the Court's duty to mine a complaint (or its attachments) for facts to make out a claim, which is apparently what the Plaintiff expects the Court to do here. As such, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails initial review. The Plaintiff also purports to bring this action on behalf of himself and 12 other Plaintiffs. Judge Bell points out that a pro se inmate may not represent other inmates in a class action, and may not sign pleadings on their behalf. Here, the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and it does not appear that any of the purported other Plaintiffs signed the Complaint. Finally, Judge Bell holds that a plaintiff may not assert unrelated claims against unrelated defendants in a single action. Here, the Plaintiff appears to bring multiple unrelated claims against unrelated defendants. These may not be litigated in the same action. As such, Judge Bell finds that the Plaintiff has failed to state any claim for relief in his Amended Complaint. The Court will dismiss this action with prejudice. The Court need not allow another round of amendment where the Plaintiff has now twice woefully failed to state a claim for relief and such amendment would, therefore, be futile. For the reasons stated, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to terminate this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4wwptwddfrom PacerMonitor.com. [*] Securities Class Action Filing Activity Increased in 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------- The number of securities class action lawsuits increased slightly in 2023, reversing the trend of decline over the last three consecutive years, according to a report released today by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. The report, Securities Class Action Filings -- 2023 Year in Review, found that plaintiffs filed 215 securities class action lawsuits in federal and state courts in 2023, up slightly from 208 filings in 2022. The number of "core" filings -- those excluding M&A filings -- also increased slightly from the previous year. However, despite a small uptick in overall filing volume, the number of state 1933 Act filings and combined federal Section 11 and state 1933 Act filings fell in 2023. The number of filings in the three most common trend categories -- SPAC, COVID-19, and cryptocurrency -- also all fell in 2023. "In 2023, the number of combined federal Section 11 and state 1933 Act filings and state-only filings decreased by 62% and 82%, respectively," said Alexander "Sasha" Aganin, the report's coauthor and a Cornerstone Research senior vice president. "While this could have otherwise contributed to an overall decrease in filings, core filings without Section 11 allegations were up 26%, and more than compensated for the large decline in Section 11 filings." In addition to a large decrease in Section 11 filings, the share of core federal filings related to SPACs, COVID-19, and cryptocurrency fell by more than 15 percentage points to less than 20% in 2023, despite these still being the most common trend categories. Cryptocurrency-related filings decreased by 39% from their 2022 peak, with 11 of the 14 cryptocurrency-related filings brought in the first half of 2023. Core SPAC filings also fell by 39% year-over-year, while COVID-19-related filings decreased by 50%. Nine securities class actions related to the 2023 Banking Turbulence were filed -- one in the second half of 2022 and eight in 2023 -- representing an emerging trend category. Despite an increase in overall filings, the aggregate filing size decreased when measured by Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL), falling 46% from $618 billion in 2022 to $335 billion in 2023, and returning to 2019–2021 levels. Conversely, the aggregate filing size as measured by Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) increased to $3.2 trillion, the second-highest amount on record. In 2023, the 44 mega MDL filings accounted for $2.9 trillion, or 90% of total MDL. "Given dramatic allegation of massive frauds in the crypto markets, ranging from FTX to Binance, observers might reasonably be mystified by the decline in private crypto litigation," observed Joseph Grundfest, professor at Stanford Law School and a former SEC Commissioner. "But there is a simple explanation. Crypto prices rebounded in the second half of the year. When prices are up, damages are harder to allege so litigation declines." Key Trends -- While the likelihood of core filings targeting U.S. exchange-listed companies in 2023 increased slightly from 2022, the likelihood of an S&P 500 company being the subject of a core federal filing nearly doubled year-over-year to 7.1%. -- In 2023, there were 44 mega MDL filings with a total mega MDL of $2.9 trillion, a 30% increase from 2022 and the second-highest value on record. Conversely, there were 16 mega DDL filings in 2023, down from 18 in 2022. Total mega DDL decreased by 60% in 2023. -- Core federal filings in the Second Circuit declined for the second consecutive year, falling to 50 in 2023, below the 1997–2022 annual average of 56. This decline was more than compensated by increases in filings in the Third and Ninth Circuits. -- From 2019 to 2022, 35% of core SPAC filings were resolved, just over half the resolution rate for all other core federal filings. About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 6,500 securities class action lawsuits filed since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other litigation-related materials filed in these cases.[GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***