/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 ***