/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240215.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 15, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 34 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Files Motion for Transfer and Consolidation 3M COMPANY: Bell Legal Group Files 81 Lawsuits 3M COMPANY: Belton Suit Removed to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Kooiman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Ouzts Suit Removed to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Rizner Suit Removed to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Spontak Suit Removed to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Wilentz, Goldman Files 8 Lawsuits 3M COMPANY: Zdenek Suit Removed to D. South Carolina AAVEN PRODUCTS: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ACT FOR HEALTH: Kennedy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Certify Classes in Riemenapp Due Feb. 14 ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Renewed Motion to Certify TCPA Suit Denied ALORICA INC: Munoz Suit Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Prime Benefits Class Action AMBRX BIOPHARMA: Monteverde & Associates Investigates J&J Merger AMERICAN AIRLINES: Seeks to File Opposition Sur-Reply in Spence AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hirsch Set for July 14 AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Varney Set for July 12 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Settles Spring 2020 Tuition Suit for $5.4M AMERICOLLECT INC: Sued Over Emergency Ambulance Services ARM & J CORP: Faces Dominguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ATLASSIAN CORP: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action AURORA BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert. Hearing in Martin Set for Oct. 22 AVROBIO INC: M&A Investigates Tectonic Therapeutic Merger BENIHANA NATIONAL: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOEING COMPANY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 1 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: April 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BROOGE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 5 CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Fields Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime COASTAL MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Haskins Claims COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Care Providers' OT Wages Under FLSA COMMUNITY HEALTH: McGaha Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA COMMUNITY HEALTH: McVittie Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA COPLEY COFFEE: Virdi Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices CVS CAREMARK: NCPA Challenges Osterhaus Arbitration Motion DESIGN FIRST: Fails to Pay Carpenters' OT Wages Under FLSA, IMWL E*TRADE SECURITIES: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action EHARMONY INC: Faces Kohn Suit Over Illegal Biometric Data Storage EVOLUTION AB: Artificially Inflated ADS Prices, Skolnick Claims FAIRLIFE LLC: Kindly Disregard Class Action Reporter's Prior Report FELD ENTERTAINMENT: Gray Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages FIRSTENERGY CORP: Balks at Shareholder Lawyers' Meddling FUNCTION(X) INC: Mule Files Appeal in Suit v. BOD GOOGLE LLC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action for $350MM GRINDR LLC: Flynn Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection HARPOON THERAPEUTICS: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merck Sale HEALTHEC LLC: Latimer Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info HYPHEN LLC: Files Motion to Dismiss Payday Loan Class Action IN-FOCUS SOLUTIONS: Schanen Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation INMARKET MEDIA: Tracks App Users' Geolocation, Class Suit Says JLT MOBILE: State Councils Back Settlement in Breach Class Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Employee Health Plan JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Lewandowski Sues Over Mismanaged ERISA Plans JOHNSON CONTROLS: Employees Sue Over Unpaid Commissions JOSSELYNE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Interns, Raghnal Suit Claims KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over 2022 Data Breach KOSHA FIT: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages L'OREAL USA: Seeks Dismissal of Hair Relaxer Class Action LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses VPPA Violation Class Suit LETICA CORPORATION: Faces Lawrence FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana LG CORP: Indiana Consumers Join Class Suit Over Faulty Fridges MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Oral Argument Heard in Securities Suit MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Faces Second Class Action Over Emissions Fraud MERIT ENERGY: Faces Fink Suit Over Underpaid Royalties NEW TAVARES: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Toribio Says NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action NOVATECH: Lures Investors to Ponzi Scheme, Mullins Suit Alleges ONEHOPE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Morgan Suit Alleges OPEN DOOR: Sharma Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages PAIGE LLC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Elder Suit Claims PIGGLY WIGGLY: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Grede Claims PLANET HOME: Faces Class Action Over November 2023 Cyberattack POLICYGENIUS LLC: De Felice Balks at Disclosure of Private Info POWER COOLING: Mohabir Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers/Mechanics PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Ford Files Bid to Permanently Seal Exhibits PTB SALES: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices PURECYCLE TECH: Theodore Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class RED DOG: Faces Class Action Over Withheld Wages ROSEBUD LENDING: Faces Class Action Over Predatory Loans SIX FLAGS: Appeals Remand Order in Mack Suit to 3rd Circuit TAMARA LICH: Class Action v. Freedom Convoy Organizers Okayed TATLER ASIA: Lion Messi Fans Hoping to Launch Breach Class Action TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over User Data Sharing TEXAS: Diogu Sues Over Content-Based Restriction of Free Speech ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Seeks Extension of Class Action Opt-Out Deadline WALMART INC: Faces FCRA Class Action in California WARNER BROS: Averts Class Action Over Post-Merger Stock Drop WARNER BROS: Weil Wins Complete Securities Class Action Dismissal WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dishwashers [*] Data Breach Class Actions on the Rise, Report Shows ********* 23ANDME INC: Files Motion for Transfer and Consolidation -------------------------------------------------------- 23andMe, Inc., 23andMe Pharmacy Holdings, Inc., 23andMe Holding Co., Case MDL No. 3098 (Multidistrict Litigation, Dec. 21, 2023), respectfully move for an Order transferring the thirty-one (31) cases listed in the attached Schedule of Actions (individually, an “Action,” and collectively, “the Actions”), as well as any cases subsequently filed involving similar facts or claims (“tag-along cases”), to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Actions all assert claims arising from an alleged data security incident in which, as a result of 23andMe users recycling their 23andMe passwords on multiple platforms apart from 23andMe, an unauthorized actor was able to access certain 23andMe customer profile information that such customers chose to make available to their genetic relatives through the 23andMe application (the “Incident”). Each Action arises from the same set of alleged facts, and the judges in each Action will be required to oversee much of the same discovery and rule on common issues including standing, affirmative defenses, and standard of care. Litigation of the core issues and defenses will involve substantially the same fact discovery, including discovery related to the Incident, the putative classes, and fact and expert witness depositions. Centralization will serve the interests of the parties and the District Courts by greatly enhancing efficiency and convenience and will further prevent parallel litigation in multiple courts that risks inconsistent outcomes and duplicative work.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ian C. Ballon, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-289-7881 Fax: 650-462-7881 Email: Ballon@gtlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Bell Legal Group Files 81 Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------- Bell Legal Group, LLC filed 81 lawsuits seeking class action status against the Defendants 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. Each of the complaints alleges that the Defendants caused personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (“AFFF”) and firefighter turnout gear (“TOG”) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants’ PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products’ condition. The Plaintiffs were unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants’ AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants’ instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiffs' consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant’s AFFF or TOG products caused the Plaintiffs to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. All of the complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed in Dec. 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs are: Andrew Tennessen. Case No. 2:23-cv-06905-RMG Arthur Stavdal, Case No. 2:23-cv-06906-RMG James S. Astell. Case No. 2:23-cv-07012-RMG Joe Barger. Case No. 2:23-cv-07019-RMG James Barnaba. Case No. 2:23-cv-07005-RMG Benjamin Bennett Jr. Case No. 2:23-cv-06908-RMG Edward Blakeslee Jr. Case No. 2:23-cv-06963-RMG Bob Smith. Case No. 2:23-cv-06910-RMG Bobbie Reburn. Case No. 2:23-cv-06912-RMG Boyd D. Dickson. Case No. 2:23-cv-06914-RMG Brian Vargocko. Case No. 2:23-cv-06915-RMG Bruce Robinson. Case No. 2:23-cv-06917-RMG Jeffrey Carter. Case No. 2:23-cv-07014-RMG Charmaine Hardney. Case No. 2:23-cv-06928-RMG Chris Facemire. Case No. 2:23-cv-06930-RMG Christion Harris. Case No. 2:23-cv-06932-RMG Christopher Willour. Case No. 2:23-cv-06935-RMG Harold Cottrell. Case No. 2:23-cv-06992-RMG Edward Crenshaw. Case No. 2:23-cv-06964-RMG Curtis Maggard. Case No. 2:23-cv-06939-RMG Dallas Tuttle. Case No. 2:23-cv-06940-RMG Dana Graves. Case No. 2:23-cv-06941-RMG Dani Dunfee. Case No. 2:23-cv-06942-RMG Daniel Yetter. Case No. 2:23-cv-06943-RMG Danny W. Kuhlmann. Case No. 2:23-cv-06944-RMG Darin Moyle. Case No. 2:23-cv-06946-RMG Donald Darnell. Case No. 2:23-cv-06956-RMG Devereaux Jones. Case No. 2:23-cv-06953-RMG Joel Dillahunty. Case No. 2:23-cv-07022-RMG Dominique M. Valentino. Case No. 2:23-cv-06954-RMG Douglas Duart. Case No. 2:23-cv-06961-RMG Harold K. Dunn. Case No. 2:23-cv-06993-RMG John Ellis. Case No. 2:23-cv-07033-RMG Ernest Jones. Case No. 2:23-cv-06976-RMG Edward Esver. Case No. 2:23-cv-06970-RMG Eugene Mallet. Case No. 2:23-cv-06983-RMG Floyd Young. Case No. 2:23-cv-06984-RMG Francisco Deleon Jr. Case No. 2:23-cv-06985-RMG Fred L. Farmer. Case No. 2:23-cv-06986-RMG Benjamin Futch. Case No. 2:23-cv-06909-RMG Edward Crenshaw. Case No. 2:23-cv-06964-RMG George Goukler. Case No. 2:23-cv-06987-RMG John Gracey. Case No. 2:23-cv-07035-RMG Gregory Hawkins. Case No. 2:23-cv-06990-RMG David Groves. Case No. 2:23-cv-06947-RMG Christopher Guinn. Case No. 2:23-cv-06934-RMG Charles Hardy. Case No. 2:23-cv-06918-RMG Harlan Calhoun. Case No. 2:23-cv-06991-RMG James Harrell. Case No. 2:23-cv-07006-RMG Harvey Wade. Case No. 2:23-cv-06996-RMG James Haywood. Case No. 2:23-cv-07007-RMG Henry L. Kinnison. Case No. 2:23-cv-06998-RMG Herbert Tillman. Case No. 2:23-cv-07000-RMG Jack Sheppard. Case No. 2:23-cv-07003-RMG James Jacobs. Case No. 2:23-cv-07008-RMG Jim Manney. Case No. 2:23-cv-07016-RMG Jimmie Lee Stevenson. Case No. 2:23-cv-07017-RMG John Anderson. Case No. 2:23-cv-07031-RMG Edward Johnson. Case No. 2:23-cv-06972-RMG John Ketterer. Case No. 2:23-cv-07036-RMG Charles Lewis Jr. Case No. 2:23-cv-06920-RMG Charles Lucas. Case No. 2:23-cv-06922-RMG George Massie. Case No. 2:23-cv-06988-RMG Donald McAnally. Case No. 2:23-cv-06958-RMG James McClendon. Case No. 2:23-cv-07009-RMG John Miller, III. Case No. 2:23-cv-07037-RMG Charles Nordin. Case No. 2:23-cv-06923-RMG John Palodichuk. Case No. 2:23-cv-07038-RMG Harry H. Patterson. Case No. 2:23-cv-06995-RMG Harold Player, Sr. Case No. 2:23-cv-06994-RMG John Price. Case No. 2:23-cv-07039-RMG Glen Pyburn. Case No. 2:23-cv-06989-RMG David Rich. Case No. 2:23-cv-06949-RMG David Sharp. Case No. 2:23-cv-06950-RMG Jeffrey L. Shaver. Case No. 2:23-cv-07013-RMG Charles Skelton. Case No. 2:23-cv-06924-RMG Donald Slone. Case No. 2:23-cv-06960-RMG John Smith. Case No. 2:23-cv-07040-RMG Charles Spikes. Case No. 2:23-cv-06926-RMG David Stone. Case No. 2:23-cv-06952-RMG James Thorpe. Case No. 2:23-cv-07010-RMG Jeffrey Whiting. Case No. 2:23-cv-07015-RMG The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Randolph L. Lee, Esq. Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com rlee@belllegalgroup.com gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com - and - Howard L. Nations THE NATIONS LAW FIRM 9703 Richmond Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77042 Phone: (731) 807- 8400 Email: nations@howardnations.com 3M COMPANY: Belton Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Belton, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BASF CORPORATION, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CB GARMENT, INC., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, FIRE-DEX, LLC, FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC., GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC, INNOTEX CORP., JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, L.N. CURTIS & SONS, LION GROUP, INC, MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC, MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP, RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOUTHERN MILLS, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc), VERIDIAN LIMITED, W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2023CP4301832 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Sumter County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06802-RMG. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Duffy, Esq. DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC 96 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 720-2044 Fax: (843) 720-2047 Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8520 Email: dring@mayerbrown.com 3M COMPANY: Kooiman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Douglas Kooiman and Diane Kooiman, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA US, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHE-MDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHE-MGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC., f/k/a DowDuPont, Inc.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DV PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C., INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC., a/Wa Chubb National Foam; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UNITED CORPORATION; UTC FIRE AMERICAS CORPORATION, Interlogix, Inc., TECHNOLOGIES & SECURITIES INC., f/n/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-06893-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 27, 2023), is brought for personal injury damages resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce, AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff Vernon Burks in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiffs' consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiffs' training and firefighting activities. Plaintiffs further seek injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Eric Koerner regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish active fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with renal cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Plaintiff Martha Koerner is married to Eric Koerner, The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or underlying PFAS containing PFOA or PFOS chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Houssiere, III, Esq. HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE, LLP 1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800 Houston, TX 77056-3812 Phone: 713-626-3700 Facsimile: 713-626-3709 Email: choussiere@hdhtex.com 3M COMPANY: Ouzts Suit Removed to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Ouzts, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BASF CORPORATION, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CB GARMENT, INC., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, FIRE-DEX, LLC, FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC., GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC, INNOTEX CORP., JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, L.N. CURTIS & SONS, LION GROUP, INC, MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC, MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP, RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOUTHERN MILLS, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc), VERIDIAN LIMITED, W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2023CP2401068 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Greenwood County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06792-RMG. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Duffy, Esq. DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC 96 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 720-2044 Fax: (843) 720-2047 Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8520 Email: dring@mayerbrown.com 3M COMPANY: Rizner Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian James Rizner, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BASF CORPORATION, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CB GARMENT, INC., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, FIRE-DEX, LLC, FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC., GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC, INNOTEX CORP., JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, L.N. CURTIS & SONS, LION GROUP, INC, MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC, MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP, RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOUTHERN MILLS, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc), VERIDIAN LIMITED, W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2023CP0900210 was removed from the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Calhoun County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06803-RMG. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Duffy, Esq. DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC 96 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 720-2044 Fax: (843) 720-2047 Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8520 Email: dring@mayerbrown.com 3M COMPANY: Spontak Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ronald Spontak, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BASF CORPORATION, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CB GARMENT, INC., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, FIRE-DEX, LLC, FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC., GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC, INNOTEX CORP., JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, L.N. CURTIS & SONS, LION GROUP, INC, MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC, MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP, RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOUTHERN MILLS, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc), VERIDIAN LIMITED, W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2023CP2607139 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Horry County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06806-RMG. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Duffy, Esq. DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC 96 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 720-2044 Fax: (843) 720-2047 Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8520 Email: dring@mayerbrown.com 3M COMPANY: Wilentz, Goldman Files 8 Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------- Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A. filed 8 lawsuits seeking class action status against the Defendants 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50). Each of the complaints alleges that the Defendants caused personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (“AFFF”) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Defendants’ PFAS containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiffs in their intended manner, without significant change in the products’ condition. The Plaintiffs were unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants’ AFFF products and relied on the Defendants’ instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiffs' consumption, Inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant’s AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. All of the complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The complaints were filed in Dec. 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs are: Clifton Chang. Case No. 2:23-cv-07028-RMG Edward D. Hernandes, Jr. Case No. 2:23-cv-07023-RMG Emrick Artz and Rae Artz, his wife. Case No. 2:23-cv-07030-RMG James Charlton and Linda Charlton, his wife. Case No. 2:23-cv-07027-RMG Jerome Cala and Phyllis Cala, his wife. Case No. 2:23-cv-07029-RMG Margherita Carney, individually and as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of JAMES CARNEY, deceased. Case No. 2:23-cv-07026-RMG Timothy Garner. Case No. 2:23-cv-07024-RMG Vernon Hill and Patti Hill, his wife. Case No. 2:23-cv-07021-RMG The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-855-6060 Facsimile: 732-726-4860 3M COMPANY: Zdenek Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert J. Zdenek, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, AMEREX CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BASF CORPORATION, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CB GARMENT, INC., CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, FIRE-DEX, LLC, FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC., GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC, INNOTEX CORP., JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, L.N. CURTIS & SONS, LION GROUP, INC, MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC, MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP, RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SOUTHERN MILLS, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc), VERIDIAN LIMITED, W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No. 2023CP0803311 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Berkeley County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06807-RMG. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Duffy, Esq. DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC 96 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 720-2044 Fax: (843) 720-2047 Email: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8520 Email: dring@mayerbrown.com AAVEN PRODUCTS: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aaven Products, Inc. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aaven Products, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00700-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aaven Products, Inc. is a cosmetics store in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ACT FOR HEALTH: Kennedy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- DOROTHY RENEE KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated. Plaintiff v. ACT FOR HEALTH, INC. d/b/a PROFESSIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT, and RICHARD L. WITTENBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00028-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 22, 2024) is a collective action and class action brought by Plaintiff Dorothy Renee Kennedy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, to recover minimum and overtime compensation from Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Rev. Code. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a nurse, providing in-home care to clients. Since at least October 16, 2023, Defendants have failed to timely pay her for the work she performed. The Defendants suffered and permitted her to work more than 40 hours in a week without timely paying her the legally mandated overtime premium, says the Plaintiff. Act For Health, Inc., d/b/a Professional Case Management, operates as a home health care service provider throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 943-6659 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 E-mail: matt@finneylawfirm.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Certify Classes in Riemenapp Due Feb. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX RIEMENAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00670-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Amendments to the pleadings: March 18, 2024 2. Fact Discovery Cutoff: July 3, 2025 3. Disclosure of Class Certification Experts: Proponent: Sept. 27, 2024 Respondent: Oct. 25, 2024 Daubert Motions: Dec. 5, 2024 4. Motion & Brief To Certify Classes: Feb. 14, 2025 5. This is the deadline for plaintiffs to seek certification of a Rule 23 class or for defendant to seek decertification of a conditional FLSA class. Responses: March 10, 2025 Replies: March 24, 2025 6. Disclosure of Merits Experts: Proponent: July 18, 2025 Respondent: Aug. 8, 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 12, 2025 7. Deadline for Filing Daubert and Sept. 5, 2025 Dispositive Motions: 8. Settlement Letters: Dec. 12, 2025 9. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all Jan 2, 2026 motions in limine: Objections: Jan. 23, 2026 10. First Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 10, 2026 11. Trial: Feb. 23, 2026 Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lQqocE at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Renewed Motion to Certify TCPA Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Derek S. Franklin of DuaneMorris.com report that on January 29, 2024, in Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 1:20-CV-07091 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2024), Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a renewed motion for class certification brought by plaintiffs accusing Allstate of violating telemarketing laws by allowing an outside party to solicit 'do-not-call' listees on its behalf. After denying the plaintiff's initial motion of class certification a year earlier, Judge Gottschall denied the plaintiff's second motion for class certification because the plaintiff failed to show a material change of circumstances in the time since the first certification motion that warranted a different ruling. The decision is required reading for corporate defendants seeking to quell efforts by plaintiffs to take a second shot at obtaining class certification after a failed earlier attempt. Case Background Plaintiff Robert Hossfeld filed a lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Co. alleging that Allstate violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by providing a telemarketer that Allstate contracted with a list of consumer leads identifying individuals such as Plaintiff who requested to be placed on Allstate's internal 'do-not-call' list. Id. at 2. In May 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In March 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to show a large enough class to make joinder impractical. Id. at 2-3. In the order denying the motion, the Court did not include language stating that its denial of Plaintiff's certification bid was "with prejudice." Id. at 8. Given the absence of that language, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class certification in May 2023 asking the Court to reconsider its earlier class certification ruling. Plaintiff asserted that he "reviewed the infirmities relied upon by the Court in its original opinion denying his first motion for class certification, and modified the class definitions and arguments to address them." Id. at 5. Allstate moved to strike Plaintiff's second motion for class certification, arguing that Plaintiff should not be given a "second bite at the apple." Id. at 1. The Court's Rejection Of Second Motion For Class Certification On January 29, 2024, the Court issued a 9-page decision granting Allstate's motion to strike Plaintiff's second class certification motion. Id. The Court's decision analyzed Plaintiff's second class certification motion under two applicable standards, including: (1) principles governing a pre-judgment motion for reconsideration under Rules 54(b) and 59(c); and (2) the Rule 23(c)(1) standard for revising an order granting or denying class certification. Id. at 4. The Court rejected Plaintiff's arguments under both standards. First, the Court determined that Plaintiff did not satisfy the reconsideration standards under Rules 54(b) and 59(e) because he failed to "present either newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact." Id. at 5. The Court noted as part of this conclusion that, "although [Plaintiff] has submitted evidence not previously presented to the court, he [did] not contend that this evidence was unavailable to him when he filed his first class certification motion or that the court made a manifest error of fact or law when it denied his first class certification motion. Id. at 5-6. Second, the Court found that Plaintiff's did not make a necessary showing to reverse the Court's earlier denial of class certification under Rule 23. Citing Seventh Circuit precedent in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 785 (7th Cir. 2015), which affirmed the denial of a second class certification motion where there was no showing of "a material change of circumstances to justify revisiting the first class certification ruling," the Court in Hossfeld rejected Plaintiff's argument for the same reason. Id. at 7. As the Court explained, Plaintiff did not dispute that the newly-included arguments and supporting evidence in his second class certification motion were available at the time of his first motion. Id. at 9. Thus, the Court concluded that Plaintiff did not show "a material change in circumstances needed to obtain a second bite at the proverbial apple." Id. Based on rejecting Plaintiff's arguments under both applicable legal standards, the Court granted Allstate's motion to strike Plaintiff's second motion for class certification. Id. Implications For Companies This opinion represents a helpful roadmap for employers to fend off attempts by plaintiffs to revive a failed class certification bid. The decision is a strong source of persuasive authority supporting that a plaintiff cannot successfully move a second time for class certification absent either "a manifest error of law or fact" in the court's first class certification ruling, or newly-discovered evidence unavailable at the time of the first class certification bid representing a "material change in circumstances." Id. at 5, 9. For these reasons as well, the ruling underscores the importance of not saving potentially supportive arguments and evidence during an initial class certification battle in case of a "second bite at the apple" that may not come. [GN] ALORICA INC: Munoz Suit Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ, CYNDY PANIAGUA, and MELISSA OLSEN, individually and as a representative of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the ALORICA 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA, INC., ALORICA RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order setting a deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint of February 6, 2024 and re-setting the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification to 45 days after a decision on motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or four months after all Defendants have answered the SAC in the event that no motions to dismiss are filed. The Plaintiffs were employees of Alorica and participated in the Alorica 401(k) Retirement Plan (the "Plan"). They assert class and plan-wide claims under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). They allege that Alorica breached its fiduciary duty of prudence and duty to monitor plan service providers by failing to (a) reign in excessive recordkeeping fees, (b) invest Plan funds in the cheapest available and best performing share classes of funds, (c) timely remove underperforming funds, (d) consider passively managed alternatives to high-fee actively managed funds, and (e) remove a stable value option with excessive risk and insufficient returns. This case was initiated on October 11, 2022, when plaintiffs Baldwin, McCarthy, Munoz, Paniagua, Olsen, Ralston, Romo, and Taylor filed their Complaint against Alorica, Inc. The parties stipulated to two 35-day extensions for Alorica to respond to the Complaint. Alorica is a global leader in customer experience solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=liOJpG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. Robert N. Fisher, Esq. CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C. 1117 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-2924 Facsimile: (805) 618-2939 E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com rob@chumphreylaw.com - and - James A. Clark, Esq. Renee P. Ortega, Esq. TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105 Gold River, CA 95670 Telephone: (916) 361-6009 Facsimile: (916) 361-6019 E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com renee.parras@towerlegalgroup.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Prime Benefits Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that Amazon.com has asked a federal judge to dismiss a proposed U.S. class action accusing the e-commerce giant of misleading customers about the benefits of its paid subscription Prime service. Amazon said in a filing in Seattle federal court on Feb. 5 that the benefits of Prime membership are subject to change, and that Amazon has "sole discretion" to add or remove perks such as free delivery for online orders from the grocer Whole Foods Market (WFM). The company denied violating a Washington state consumer protection law that prohibits deceptive advertising and other unfair practices. Earlier rulings in the case knocked out other claims including fraud and breach of contract. "Amazon never guaranteed that free WFM delivery, or any other Prime benefit for that matter, would remain available," it told U.S. District Judge Tana Lin. Amazon said Prime's terms "expressly and unequivocally" state benefits can change. Amazon bought Whole Foods in 2017 for $13.7 billion. A representative for Amazon did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Ronald Marron, representing the consumer plaintiffs, in a statement said Amazon should be "held to the same good faith and fair commercial standards which are inherent in every commercial contract and transaction in the State of Washington." The lawsuit alleged Amazon's marketing about Whole Foods deliveries for Prime members is "false, misleading and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer." Amazon countered that it had not concealed a $9.95 "service fee" during the purchase and checkout process online at Whole Foods. Attorneys for the plaintiffs estimated there are hundreds of thousands of members in the class. Amazon is fighting an array of other lawsuits in state and federal courts from consumers, businesses and government agencies challenging the Seattle-based company's business practices. In one case, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission last year accused the company of using unlawful monopoly power to block competitors and charge inflated prices. In another, consumers have sued over claims that Amazon was charging consumers for purchases that were returned on time. The case is In re: Amazon Service Fee Litigation, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 2:22-cv-00743-TL. [GN] AMBRX BIOPHARMA: Monteverde & Associates Investigates J&J Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are now investigating: Ambrx Biopharma, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMAM), relating to its proposed sale to Johnson & Johnson. Under the terms of the agreement, AMAM shareholders will receive $28.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ambrx-biopharma-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Transphorm, Inc. (Nasdaq: TGAN), relating to its proposed sale to Renesas Electronics Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, TGAN shareholders will receive $5.10 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/transphorm-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. CapStar Financial Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: CSTR), relating to its proposed sale to Old National Bancorp. Under the terms of the agreement, CSTR shareholders will receive 1.155 shares of Old National per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/capstar-financial-holdings-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: THRX), relating to its proposed sale to Concentra Biosciences, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, THRX shareholders are expected to receive between $3.90 and $4.05 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/theseus-pharmaceuticals-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: Do you recover money for shareholders? Do you litigate and go to Court? Do you even go to the office and wear a suit? About Monteverde & Associates PC Juan Monteverde is a Spaniard and a born fighter. Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Seeks to File Opposition Sur-Reply in Spence --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN P. SPENCE, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated, and on behalf of the AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 401(k) PLAN and the AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 401(k) PLAN FOR PILOTS, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al, Case No. 4:23-cv-00552-O (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order grating their motion for leave to file a sur-reply responding to the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. First, the Plaintiff's reply brief proposes a new class definition. The Defendants should have "a full opportunity" to respond to Plaintiff's arguments for certification of that class, Redhawk Holdings Corp. v. Schreiber, 836 F. App'x 232, 237 (5th Cir. 2020), including the new "common" questions Plaintiff's reply proposes. Second, the Plaintiff's reply brief attempts to abandon certain claims—namely, the ESG Fund claim and all Proxy Voting claims -- that do not align with Plaintiff's investment in BlackRock index funds in May 2021. American Airlines is a major US-based airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MJOLNl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Dee J. Kelly, Jr., Esq. Russell D. Cawyer, Esq. KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 201 Main Street, Suite 2500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 332–2500 Facsimile: (817) 878–9280 E-mail: dee.kelly@kellyhart.com russell.cawyer@kellyhart.com - and - Shannon M. Barrett, Esq. Brian D. Boyle, Esq. Mark W. Robertson, Esq. William D. Pollak, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383–5300 Facsimile: (202) 383–5414 E-mail: bboyle@omm.com sbarrett@omm.com mrobertson@omm.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hirsch Set for July 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hirsch, et al., v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04005 (W.D. Mo., Filed Jan 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting a second joint motion to amend scheduling order. (1) The Plaintiffs designations and March 15, 2024 depositions of class certification experts are due on or before: (2) The Defendants designations and May 10, 2024 depositions of class certification experts are due on or before: (3) Class certification discovery shall June 14, 2024 close on: (4) The Plaintiffs motion for class July 12, 2024 certification and any individual motions for summary judgment are due on or before: (5) Opposition briefs are due on or Aug. 21, 2024 before: (6) Reply briefs are due on or before: Sept. 11, 2024 The nature of suit states Insurance -- Diversity-Contract Dispute. American Family is a property & casualty (P&C) insurance group.[CC] AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Varney Set for July 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Varney v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04004 (W.D. Mo., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting a second joint motion to amend scheduling order. (1) The Plaintiffs designations and March 15, 2024 depositions of class certification experts are due on or before: (2) The Defendants designations and May 10, 2024 depositions of class certification experts are due on or before: (3) Class certification discovery shall June 14, 2024 close on: (4) The Plaintiffs motion for class July 12, 2024 certification and any individual motions for summary judgment are due on or before: (5) Opposition briefs are due on or Aug. 21, 2024 before: (6) Reply briefs are due on or before: Sept. 11, 2024 The nature of suit states Insurance -- Diversity-Contract Dispute. American Family is a property & casualty (P&C) insurance group.[CC] AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Settles Spring 2020 Tuition Suit for $5.4M --------------------------------------------------------------- Sofia Thomas of The Eagle reports that American University will pay $5.439 million into a settlement fund as a class action lawsuit against the University seeking partial tuition refunds for the spring 2020 semester has reached a preliminary class action settlement. The lawsuit, filed in May 2020, alleges the University broke an implied contract to provide its students in-person instruction in exchange for tuition when the University moved classes online in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. District Court for D.C. granted preliminary approval Jan. 10 to a $5.439 million class-action settlement between the University and a group of approximately 7,000 eligible students. Under the terms of the preliminary agreement, the three named plaintiffs will receive service awards up to $7,500 each and the remainder of the settlement fund will be distributed among the remaining students. The terms of the preliminary settlement ensure that no more than 33 percent of the settlement fund will go towards attorney fees and costs, equaling a maximum of $1,812,818.70. "In response to a class action lawsuit brought against AU related to the transition to remote learning, AU agreed to a settlement which has received preliminary approval from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Settlement of the lawsuit is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability by AU. AU denies all the allegations raised in the lawsuit," said Elizabeth Deal, the University's assistant vice president for community and internal communication. Eligible recipients include AU undergraduate students enrolled in the University during the spring 2020 semester who paid tuition and other included fees. The proposed settlement estimates students will receive between $400 to $475, according to a notice of the preliminary settlement sent to eligible students. While the lawsuit was initially dismissed by a lower court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in March 2022. The AU lawsuit was brought up alongside a lawsuit filed against George Washington University, which argued GW had similarly breached its contract with students to provide in-person instruction in exchange for tuition. The Court affirmed the plaintiff's argument that the University "breached implied-in-fact contracts for in-person education" when it transitioned to virtual instruction. The lawsuit appeared in front of Judge Christopher R. Cooper in April 2023 in the U.S. District Court for D.C., who upheld the plaintiff's claims against AU. Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, the University "denies each and every allegation of wrongdoing, liability, and damages asserted via the claims in the lawsuit, and AU denies that the claims in the lawsuit would be appropriate for class treatment if the litigation proceeded through trial." Additionally, the members of the settlement class will forfeit the right to pursue any lawsuit against AU claiming a breach of contract relating to AU tuition or fees during the spring 2020 semester if they receive a settlement payment. Eligible students can object to the terms of the preliminary settlement or opt to exclude themselves from the settlement, meaning they would not receive a cash award but would retain their right to sue AU about the issues of the case until April 1, 2024. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on May 7, in which the Court will hear any objections or arguments before deciding whether to grant approval to the proposed settlement terms. According to Deal, Eqip Class Actions and Claim Solutions will oversee the administration of the settlement fund and additional information regarding the settlement and claims process can be found on the class action website. [GN] AMERICOLLECT INC: Sued Over Emergency Ambulance Services -------------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that a debt collector and a private ambulance company have been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing them of allegedly improperly attempting to collect debts for non-emergency ambulance transfers from people who were allegedly wrongly billed for more expensive emergency ambulance service. On Jan. 29, named plaintiff Brenda Martin, identified only as a resident of Illinois, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Americollect Inc. and Medical Express Ambulance Service Inc. The lawsuit accused Medical Express of allegedly wrongly billing patients for emergency ambulance service, when providing non-emergency services. And the lawsuit then accused Americollect of improperly attempting to collect debts on those charges. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Martin and two putative classes, alleging that the defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. According to the complaint, Medical Express Ambulance Service intentionally misclassified a routine non-emergency ambulance transfer as a more expensive 'emergency' transport and engaged Americollect to collect the alleged balance from Martin. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, actual damages and punitive damages, plus attorney fees. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Michael Drew, of Neighborhood Legal, of Chicago; and Michael Wood and Celetha Chatman, of Community Lawyers LLC, of Chicago. [GN] ARM & J CORP: Faces Dominguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR DOMINGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARM & J CORPORATION DBA PUENTE HILLS CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, a California corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01492 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024) is a class action complaint brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to pay all minimum wages; failure to pay all overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; failure to maintain accurate employment records; failure to pay wages timely during employment; failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation; failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt mechanic in the County of Los Angeles. Arm & J Corporation is a Jeep dealer with operations headquartered in Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. Rebecca Harteker, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com rh@melmedlaw.com - and - Peter Horton, Esq. LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS 3500 West Olive Avenue, Third Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 720-8335 E-mail: phorton@lfecr.com ATLASSIAN CORP: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP on Feb. 6 disclosed that on January 22, 2024, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action complaint alleging that a software company (the "Company") and certain of its executives violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.City of Hollywood Firefighters Pension Fund v. Atlassian Corp., 3:23-cv-00519-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements about the strength of its financial outlook. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege falsity with respect to most of the alleged misrepresentations or sufficient facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter with respect to one omission that was alleged plausibly. The Company sells various software products. Its growth strategy focuses on upgrading users from free to paid versions through "Free to Paid Conversions" (where customers that use the free version upgrade to a paid version) and "Paid User Expansion" (where customers that use a paid version increase the number of paid users). The Free to Paid Conversions account for approximately 10% of the revenues, while the Paid User Expansion accounts for approximately 90%. In November 2022, the Company announced slowed growth of both Free to Paid Conversions and Paid User Expansion. The Company stated that it "saw a more pronounced continuation of the trend discussed last quarter, where fewer Free instances converted to paid plans." Plaintiffs alleged that the Company knew of the slowdown in its Paid User Expansion by mid-July 2022 but falsely denied or omitted the existence of that trend in several statements made in August and September 2020. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged four categories of misstatements and omissions: (1) statements in an early August earnings call that there was a small decrease in its Free to Paid Conversions; (2) a statement in its annual report (the "Annual Report") filed with the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC"), which noted that the Company was "not aware of any trends, including in the macroeconomic environment, that affected its business"; (3) the Company's former Chief Operating Officer's statements at a conference in September 2020 that the Company was experiencing a "bit of softness" in its Free to Paid Conversions but emphasized that the impact was small; and (4) statements in the amendment to the Company's Form S-8 Registration Statement filed with the SEC in October, 2020 that incorporated the statements in its August annual report. The Court first held that plaintiffs failed to allege that the statements from the early August earnings call were false. The statements about the slowdown related to Free to Paid Conversions, not Paid User Expansion, and they were not misleading when read in context with the questions that were being answered. The Court found that various Company statements referenced in the pleadings, as well as statements in other press releases and SEC filings of which it took judicial notice, showed that the slowdown in Paid User Expansion began in mid-August at the earliest. Accordingly, plaintiffs failed to plead that the statements contradicted anything that defendants knew at the time of the earnings call (August 4). The Court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the statement that the Company was "not aware of any trends . . . that are reasonably likely to have a material effect on our revenues, income, profitability" was misleading because it did not disclose the slowdown in the growth of Paid User Expansion. The Court held that "context is key" and that the statement related to future risks posed by changing macro-economic environment that were uncertain and unpredictable. Even if the referenced "trend" related to the Paid User Expansion slowdown, the Court again noted that the earliest date on which the slowdown could have begun was mid-August and that plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead that it was a "trend" at that time. The Court also rejected claims based on the amendment to the S-8 Registration Statement, which incorporated by reference the Company's Annual Report, for the same reasons. The Court next considered statements made by the COO at a conference in September 2022, which plaintiffs alleged were misleading because they "did not fully convey the slowdown to Free to Paid Conversions" and "provided no commentary on the Paid User Expansion slowdown that began in mid-August." The Court found that the statements adequately conveyed the Free to Paid Conversions slowdown. However, the Court also found that the lack of commentary on the Paid User Expansion slowdown was plausibly misleading because defendants allegedly did not tell the market of a slowdown in the majority of its business while making encouraging statements about the "softness" in small parts of its business. According to the Court, "because the defendants specifically and repeatedly told investors over the years that they closely monitored metrics throughout the year and they told investors that they were closely monitoring those metrics, it was misleading to not communicate relevant information about this specific metric a month after the change began, even if it was not yet a full-blown 'trend.'" However, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to the COO's statements at the September conference. The Court found that plaintiffs failed to show how the COO was deliberately reckless in making the statements at the conference and that there were no allegations that the COO personally benefitted from the misrepresentations. Instead, the Court found that there was a "plausible, nonculpable" explanation for the Company's conduct: by holding the COO's call mid-quarter, the Company tried to "provide open and regular communication to their shareholders during uncertain economic times." Because plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter, the Court dismissed the complaint. City of Hollywood Firefighters Pension Fund v. Atlassian Corp. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. [GN] AURORA BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert. Hearing in Martin Set for Oct. 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Aurora Behavioral Healthcare-Santa Rose, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01891 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order vacating case management conference and re-setting it for June 20, 2024. -- The joint case management statements are June 13, 2024 due by: -- The Court further orders the parties to March 6, 2024 provide a joint status report regarding mediation no later than: -- As requested, the Class Certification Oct. 22, 2024 Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday: -- Motions for Class Certification are due Sept. 6, 2024 on Friday: -- Replies due Friday: Sept. 27, 2024 The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. Aurora Behavioral is a mental health clinic in Santa Rosa, California.[CC] AVROBIO INC: M&A Investigates Tectonic Therapeutic Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are now investigating: AVROBIO, Inc. (Nasdaq: AVRO), relating to its proposed merger with Tectonic Therapeutic, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, AVRO shareholders are expected to own approximately 22.3% of the combined company. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/avrobio-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. California BanCorp (Nasdaq: CALB), relating to its proposed sale to Southern California Bancorp. Under the terms of the agreement, CALB shareholders are expected to receive 1.590 shares of Southern California common stock per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/california-bancorp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. McGrath RentCorp (Nasdaq: MGRC), relating to its proposed sale to WillScot Mobile Mini Holdings Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, MGRC shareholders will receive either $123.00 in cash or 2.8211 shares of WillScot per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/mcgrath-rentcorp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Fresh Vine Wine Inc. (NYSE: VINE), relating to its proposed sale to Notes Live, Inc. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/fresh-vine-wine-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: Do you recover money for shareholders? Do you litigate and go to Court? Do you even go to the office and wear a suit? About Monteverde & Associates PC Juan Monteverde is a Spaniard and a born fighter. Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] BENIHANA NATIONAL: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benihana National Corp., et al. The case is styled as Eiko Bernardo Rodriguez, Danny Le, as individuals, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Benihana National Corp., Case No. 24STCV02419 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 30, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Benihana Inc. -- http://www.benihana.com/-- is an American restaurant company founded by Hiroaki Aoki in New York City in 1964 and currently based in Aventura, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 3600 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1815 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622 Phone: 323-922-2000 Email: william@justiceforworkers.com BOEING COMPANY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 6 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock of The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) between October 23, 2019 and January 24, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 1, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased Boeing securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Boeing class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21684 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 1, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Boeing had been prioritizing its profits over safety, which led to poor quality control standards in the production of its commercial aircrafts such as the 737 MAX; and (2) as a result, there was a heightened risk of manufacturing flaws that could render Boeing's new airplanes unsafe, which materialized during the Class Period. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Boeing class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21684 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: April 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS In re BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 1:20-cv-12225-ADB SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific") during the period from September 16, 2020 through November 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby: PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding AG, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $38,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), available at BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com. The Action involves allegations that Boston Scientific and certain of its senior officers violated federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Boston Scientific and certain of its executives made material misrepresentations and omissions about Boston Scientific's Lotus Edge medical device during the period from September 16, 2020 through November 16, 2020, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and that the executive defendants controlled Boston Scientific when the misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants deny all allegations in the Action and deny any violations of the federal securities laws. Issues and defenses at issue in the Action included (i) whether Defendants made materially false statements or omissions; (ii) whether Defendants made the statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the alleged misstatements caused class members' losses; and (iv) the amount of damages, if any. A hearing will be held on April 23, 2024 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, either in person in Courtroom 17 on the Fifth Floor of the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 14, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Boston Scientific Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91477, Seattle, WA 98111, 877-595-0084, info@BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than May 28, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than April 2, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 2, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Boston Scientific Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91477 Seattle, WA 98111 (877) 595-0084 info@BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com BostonScientificSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Salvatore J. Graziano Lauren A. Ormsbee Michael D. Blatchley Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com By Order of the Court [GN] BROOGE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 6 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Brooge Energy Limited (f/k/a Brooge Holdings Limited) (f/k/a Twelve Seas Investment Company) ("Brooge" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BROG) securities between November 25, 2019 and December 21, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Brooge materially overstated its revenues because it never received any revenues from BIA, as well as another fictitious customer; (2) Brooge engaged in a complex pattern of payments with BIA to create the illusion of revenues from BIA and another customer that had no knowledge of the fraud; (3) Brooge intentionally lied to its auditors and the Securities and Exchange Commission about its fraudulent activities; (4) Brooge lacked internal controls; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Brooge should contact the Firm prior to the April 5, 2024 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Fields Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- BETTY JO FIELDS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00263-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 22, 2024) is a collective and class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Plaintiff worked as a salaried, non-exempt "employee" of Defendant as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts in the position of Clinical Appeals Nurse from approximately August 2022 to the present. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant did not and does not pay Plaintiff and Defendant's other similarly situated employees any overtime wages for the hours that they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. CareSource Management Services LLC offers and administers health insurance plans through Medicaid, Medicare, and the Health Insurance Marketplace throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com COASTAL MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Haskins Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH HASKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COASTAL MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LLC d/b/a TRANSFORMATIVE HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10159 (D. Mass., Jan. 20, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. Coastal Medical Transportation Systems LLC was a subsidiary of Transformative HealthCare LLC that provided ambulance services with different medical equipment and live-saving technologies until the company ceased operations in December 2022 and was acquired by Coastal Medical Transportation Systems. On no later than April 21, 2023, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 944-9455 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Pay Care Providers' OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER LABROOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and METRO KNOXVILLE HMA, LLC d/b/a NORTH KNOXVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 3:24-cv-00128 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 2, 2024) is a collective action to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and a class action pursuant to the laws of Tennessee, and FED. R. CIV. P. 23, to recover unpaid straight-time wages and other applicable penalties. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis during the relevant time periods. The Defendants' regular practice was (and is) to automatically deduct a 30-minute meal-period from the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' daily time even though they regularly worked (and continue to work) "off-the-clock" through their meal-period breaks, the suit alleges. The effect of the Defendants' practices were (and are) that all time worked by the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members was not (and is not) counted and paid; thus, the Defendants have failed to properly compensate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all of their hours worked and resultingly failed to properly calculate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members' overtime under the FLSA and Tennessee state law, the suit adds. The Opt-in Plaintiffs are those current and former Care Providers who worked for the Defendants at the North Knoxville Medical Center facility, at any time from November 17, 2018 through final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which the Plaintiff Labrooy worked and was paid. The Putative Class Members are those current and former Care Providers who worked for the Defendants at the North Knoxville Medical Center facility, at any time from November 17, 2015 through the final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which the Plaintiffs worked and were paid. The Plaintiff Labrooy was employed by the Defendants at the North Knoxville Medical Center in Powell, Tennessee as a non-exempt Care Provider from November 2021 to June/July 2022. Community Health owns, leases, and operates hospitals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Blayne E. Fisher, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles J. Mataya, Esq. John P. Rodgers, Esq. Matthew C. Lonergan, Esq. J. Craig Oliver, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP ONE 22 ONE 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2582 E-mail: cmataya@bradley.com jrodgers@bradley.com mlonergan@bradley.com coliver@bradley.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: McGaha Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILMA SUE McGAHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and COCKE COUNTY HMA, LLC d/b/a NEWPORT MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 3:24-cv-00130 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 2, 2024) is a collective action to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and a class action pursuant to the laws of Tennessee and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to recover unpaid straight-time wages and other applicable penalties. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis during the relevant time periods. The Defendants' regular practice was (and is) to automatically deduct a 30-minute meal-period from the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' daily time even though they regularly worked (and continue to work) "off-the-clock" through their meal-period breaks, the suit alleges. The effect of the Defendants' practice were (and are) that all time worked by the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members was not (and is not) counted and paid; thus, the Defendants have failed to properly compensate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all of their hours worked and resultingly failed to properly calculate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members' overtime under the FLSA and Tennessee state law, the suit adds. The Opt-in Plaintiffs are those current and former Care Providers who worked for the Defendants at the Newport Medical Center, at any time from November 17, 2018 through final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which the Plaintiff McGaha worked and was paid. The Putative Class Members are those current and former Care Providers who worked for the Defendants at the Newport Medical Center in Tennessee, at any time from November 17, 2015 through the final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which the Plaintiffs worked and were paid. Plaintiff McGaha was employed by the Defendants in Newport, Tennessee at Newport Medical Center as a non-exempt Care Provider from September 2018 to November 2021. Community Health owns, leases, and operates hospitals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Blayne E. Fisher, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles J. Mataya, Esq. John P. Rodgers, Esq. Matthew C. Lonergan, Esq. J. Craig Oliver, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP ONE 22 ONE 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2582 E-mail: cmataya@bradley.com jrodgers@bradley.com mlonergan@bradley.com coliver@bradley.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: McVittie Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID McVITTIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and JEFFERSON COUNTY HMA, LLC d/b/a JEFFERSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 3:24-cv-00127 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 2, 2024) is a collective action to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and a class action pursuant to the laws of Tennessee, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to recover unpaid straight-time wages and other applicable penalties. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis during the relevant time periods. The Defendants' regular practice was (and is) to automatically deduct a 30-minute meal-period from the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members' daily time even though they regularly worked (and continue to work) "off-the-clock" through their meal-period breaks, the suit alleges. The effect of the Defendants' practice were (and are) that all time worked by the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members was not (and is not) counted and paid; thus, the Defendants have failed to properly compensate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all of their hours worked and resultingly failed to properly calculate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members' overtime under the FLSA and Tennessee state law, the suit adds. The Opt-in Plaintiffs are those current and former Care Providers who worked for the Defendants at the Jefferson Memorial Hospital, at any time from November 17, 2018 through final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which the Plaintiff McVittie worked and was paid. The Putative Class Members are those current and former Care Providers who worked for the Defendants at the Jefferson Memorial Hospital, at any time from November 17, 2015 through the final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which the Plaintiffs worked and were paid. Plaintiff McVittie was employed by Defendants at the Jefferson Memorial Hospital as a non-exempt Care Provider from 2006 to December 2022. Community Health owns, leases, and operates hospitals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Blayne E. Fisher, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles J. Mataya, Esq. John P. Rodgers, Esq. Matthew C. Lonergan, Esq. J. Craig Oliver, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP ONE 22 ONE 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2582 E-mail: cmataya@bradley.com jrodgers@bradley.com mlonergan@bradley.com coliver@bradley.com COPLEY COFFEE: Virdi Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------- SUKHJINDER VIRDI and RAVINDER SINGH on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COPLEY COFFEE HOLDINGS, LLC, COPLEY DB 1 LLC, EAST SIDE DD LLC, and EAST SIDE DD 108 LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00478 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and New York's Paid Sick Leave Act. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime and regular wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide notices upon hiring, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to give the mandatory leave in compliance with the statute. Plaintiffs Virdi and Singh began working with Defendants as drivers from 2018 until the end of employment in November 2023, and from 2010 and until March 2022, respectively. Copley Coffee Holdings, LLC operates a number of Dunkin' Donuts franchises and as commercial trucking company exclusively serving Dunkin' Donuts locations in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 E-mail: CG@belllg.com CVS CAREMARK: NCPA Challenges Osterhaus Arbitration Motion ---------------------------------------------------------- The National Community Pharmacists Association on Feb. 6 blasted a move by CVS Caremark, which is defending itself in a federal class action lawsuit by a small Iowa pharmacy, for its motion to compel the plaintiff into a one-sided arbitration proceeding. In response to the lawsuit, CVS Caremark recently filed a motion to force the plaintiff, Osterhaus Pharmacy, into arbitration to settle the matter. To do so, Osterhaus would have to ante up $50,000 before an arbitrator will hear any aspect of the complaint. "The barrier to entry and the one-sided arbitration rules are obscene," said NCPA CEO B. Douglas Hoey, pharmacist, MBA. "It's clearly designed to discourage small pharmacies from filing any complaints." In their response to the CVS Caremark motion, lawyers for Osterhaus say the CVS Caremark contract, which mandates arbitration, is "laden with unconscionable terms." One of them is the $50,000 escrow requirement just to get in front of an arbitrator. Another requires independent pharmacies to file their disputes separately, even if they're all making the identical claim. That provision, said Hoey, ensures that small pharmacies can't pool their resources and must therefore face the highest costs and procedural obstacles. Other provisions: limit the award arbitrators can order CVS Caremark to pay; limit the data and documents small pharmacies can seek during discovery; and require small pharmacies to pay CVS Caremark's legal expenses if they don't win the arbitration. "In order to serve their own patients, small pharmacies must accept all these unfair, one-sided contract provisions," said Hoey. "They have absolutely no choice. And each of the provisions is designed to discourage arbitration or create an unfair advantage for CVS Caremark." Founded in 1898, the National Community Pharmacists Association is the voice for the community pharmacist, representing over 19,400 pharmacies that employ nearly 240,000 individuals nationwide. Community pharmacies are rooted in the communities where they are located and are among America's most accessible health care providers. To learn more, visit www.ncpa.org. [GN] DESIGN FIRST: Fails to Pay Carpenters' OT Wages Under FLSA, IMWL ---------------------------------------------------------------- STANISLAW KULIS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated plaintiffs, known and unknown, v. DESIGN FIRST BUILDERS, LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00953 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid back wages earned on or before the date three years prior to the filing of this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The suit contends that the Defendants improperly classified the Plaintiff as a 1099 independent contractor and compensated the Plaintiff on an hourly basis at $22.00 - $23.00 per hour and failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. During the Plaintiff's employment, he was scheduled to and did work 50 hours most weeks, the suit claims. The Plaintiff Kulis is a former employee of the Defendant who worked as a custom cabinet maker carpenter from July 2022 to November 2023. The Defendant provides custom home building and other construction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E*TRADE SECURITIES: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Popper LLP on Feb. 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against E*TRADE Securities LLC ("E*TRADE") and its affiliate Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC ("MSSB") ("Defendants") alleging breach of contract arising from Defendants' failure to pay a "reasonable rate of interest" on cash swept from retirement accounts, as required under E*TRADE's Retirement Sweep Deposit Account Program Customer Agreement and IRA Disclosures. Since 2023, E*TRADE has been administered through MSSB and has operated as E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley. In contrast to prevailing market trends, which show an increase in interest rates on many consumer financial products in recent years, sweep rates at E*TRADE remain unreasonably low, with rates as of February 6, 2024 at 0.01% for balances up to $499,999, 0.05% for balances between $500,000 and $999,999, and 0.15% for balances of $1,000,000 and above. By comparison, as of February 6, 2024, the Federal Funds target rate set by the Federal Reserve is between 5.25 to 5.50%. The 0.01% paid by Defendants is equivalent to $1 of interest on $10,000 in cash per year. Sweeping brokerage cash to affiliated entities—which, it is alleged, is a clear conflict of interest incentivizing banks to underpay customers—is not unique to E*TRADE and Morgan Stanley, but is also practiced at other prominent institutions like Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo. Wolf Popper LLP serves as lead counsel for plaintiffs and the putative class. The complaint, among other things, seeks damages on behalf of retirement customers and an injunction barring Defendants from continuing to pay an unreasonable rate of interest on retirement sweep accounts. Retirement accountholders who would like to discuss their rights with respect to the interest rates paid on swept cash should contact Robert Finkel at (212) 451-9620, or rfinkel@wolfpopper.com. Wolf Popper LLP has successfully recovered billions of dollars for consumers and investors. The firm's reputation and expertise have been consistently recognized by courts throughout the country. For more information about the firm, visit www.wolfpopper.com. Attorney Advertising: Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome. [GN] EHARMONY INC: Faces Kohn Suit Over Illegal Biometric Data Storage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Kohn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. eHarmony, Inc., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00613-ODW-SSC (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2024) seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' alleged unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, eHarmony collects, stores, possesses, otherwise obtains, uses, and disseminates its users' biometric data to, amongst other things, further enhance eHarmony and its online dating platform. eHarmony's unlawful collection, obtainment, storage, and use of its users' biometric data exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if eHarmony or its third-party affiliates, database containing facial geometry scans or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, eHarmony users have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information, says the suit. The Plaintiff opened an eHarmony account in 2020. eHarmony is an Internet-based dating and social networking service and application.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leah M. Beligan, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300 Newport Beach, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 224-3881 E-mail: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net jbeligan@bbclawyers.net - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 ½ N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com - and - Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com EVOLUTION AB: Artificially Inflated ADS Prices, Skolnick Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Skolnick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Evolution AB (publ), Marin Carlesund, and Jacob Kaplan, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00326 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 23, 2024) is a federal securities class action against Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff and other persons that, between February 14, 2019 and October 25, 2023, while in the United States, purchased or otherwise acquired Evolution's American Depositary Shares (ADS) traded under the ticker symbol EVVTY on the United States Over-the-Counter Market, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the complaint, Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly, by the use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, the mails, wireless spectrum, and/or the facilities of national securities markets, in connection with purchases of Evolution's ADSs, (i) made, disseminated and/or approved false statements of material fact, (ii) omitted to state material facts necessary to make their statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and (iii) carried out a plan, scheme and course of conduct intended to: (1) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and members of the Class, (2) conceal certain risks involved in investing in Evolution, and Evolution's financial performance and future business prospects, from the investing public, including Plaintiff and members of the Class, (3) artificially inflate and maintain the prices of Evolution's ADSs, and (4) cause Plaintiff and members of the Class to purchase Evolution's ADSs at artificially inflated prices. The Defendants made their false and misleading statements and omissions and engaged in the wrongful activity alleged herein, knowingly or in reckless disregard of the true facts, so as to execute willful deceit and fraud upon Plaintiff and the other members of the Class who purchased Evolution's ADSs during the Class Period, says the suit. Evolution AB is a global online gaming company. Evolution develops, produces, markets, licenses and runs online casino solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Sink, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. SINK 1800 JFK Blvd., 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 995-1000 E-mail: rsink@sinklawoffices.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 FAIRLIFE LLC: Kindly Disregard Class Action Reporter's Prior Report ------------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Reporter shared stale news about fairlife, LLC, and its parent The Coca-Cola Company earlier this week. We made news that was news in 2019 sound like it was timely. It wasn't. The 2019 case has been resolved. Information on that deal is available at https://www.fairlifemilksettlement.com/en There is no new information about any current class action litigation involving fairlife. FELD ENTERTAINMENT: Gray Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATIE GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similary situated, Plaintiff v. FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., FELD CONSUMER PRODUCTS, FELD MOTOR SPORTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00216 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for misclassifying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as independent contracts and consequently paying minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Feld classified Plaintiff as an "independent contractor" outside the protections of the FLSA. Feld hired Ms. Gray to travel from show to show and sell promotional items and work in concessions area. Feld paid Ms. Gray a flat fee per event, irrespective of the number of hours she worked, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former Feld employees under the FLSA to remedy violations for unpaid minimum wages and overtime and for failure to properly keep employment records as the FLSA requires. Feld Entertainment, Inc. is an American live show production company which owns a number of traveling shows.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane McClelland, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHANE MCCLELLAND, PLLC 21733 Provincial Blvd., Suite 910 Katy, TX 77450 Telephone: (713) 987-7107 Facsimile: (832) 827-4207 E-mail: shane@hmtrial.com FIRSTENERGY CORP: Balks at Shareholder Lawyers' Meddling -------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Ohio utility FirstEnergy is accusing shareholder lawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd of attempting a procedural sleight-of-hand to avert a potentially problematic appellate ruling on an increasingly popular defense in securities litigation. If nothing else, the fight over a Robbins Geller request for the trial judge to revise a class certification opinion that's now under review at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the stakes of an issue that hasn't previously gotten much attention. First, some background. FirstEnergy is facing $8 billion in claims by investors accusing the company of covering up a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme to get Ohio legislators to bail out two aging nuclear plants. (FirstEnergy paid $230 million in 2021 to resolve federal charges stemming from the bribery scheme.) In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley of Columbus, Ohio, certified two investor classes -- one for shareholders, the other for noteholders who invested in two FirstEnergy offerings -- to pursue fraud claims. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in November to review Marbley's class certification decision. As I told you at the time, the appellate court will consider two issues raised by FirstEnergy: whether Marbley erred by applying the lenient standard for class actions based on deceptive corporate omissions, rather than the tougher standard for corporate misstatements, in a case alleging a mix of omissions and misrepresentations; and whether the trial judge rigorously analyzed shareholders' theory of classwide damages, as required by U.S. Supreme Court in 2013's Comcast v. Behrend. FirstEnergy and its friends in the business lobby emphasized the first issue in their briefs urging the 6th Circuit to grant mid-case review of Marbley's class certification opinion. But the Comcast issue could actually have broader consequences across securities fraud litigation. Defendants in shareholder fraud cases are increasingly likely to invoke Comcast in their briefs opposing class certification, arguing that plaintiffs haven't offered adequate models for classwide damages. So far, those arguments haven't gotten much traction. But if the 6th Circuit sides with FirstEnergy to hold that shareholders' damages model is flawed — or even if the appeals court merely concludes that Marbley's analysis of shareholders' model was not sufficiently rigorous — you can expect Comcast challenges to mushroom. Robbins Geller seems to want to take the Comcast question out of the 6th Circuit's purview. In an unusual motion last month, the shareholder firm asked Marbley, the trial judge, to revise his class certification opinion to clarify that he did indeed engage in rigorous analysis -- including a probe of the expert witness reports on both sides during oral arguments on class certification -- to conclude that shareholders met the Comcast standard. When FirstEnergy asked the 6th Circuit to review Marbley's class certification decision, its lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell told the appeals court that Marbley erroneously cited his analysis of noteholders' statutory damages under the Securities Act to justify his conclusion that shareholders offered an adequate damages model for their Exchange Act claims. The Exchange Act does not provide for statutory damages, so FirstEnergy argued that Marbley's analysis was flawed. But Robbins Geller said in last month's motion for clarification that the full record proves Marbley did not rely on his Securities Act analysis to certify shareholders' Exchange Act class. Robbins Geller urged Marbley to revise his opinion to reflect that he looked carefully at all of the evidence both sides offered before rejecting FirstEnergy's Comcast challenge to certification of the shareholder class. That "simple clarification," the shareholder firm said, would avert "the waste of judicial resources" that would result from the 6th Circuit's consideration of the Comcast question. It would also, according to Robbins Geller, "avoid the possibility of confusion at the appellate court." FirstEnergy responded in a brief that contends Robbins Geller's motion for clarification is procedurally improper and wouldn't even take the Comcast issue off the 6th Circuit's table. The company's opening brief to the 6th Circuit is due on Feb. 9, Sullivan & Cromwell told Marbley in the brief. So now is not the time for the trial judge to rewrite the opinion under appellate review. "Plaintiffs should not be permitted to force the 6th Circuit or defendants to redo their work because plaintiffs have decided that they do not like their chances on appeal," FirstEnergy argued. Sullivan & Cromwell said it would be "extraordinary — indeed unprecedented" for Marbley to reclaim jurisdiction over an issue that is before the 6th Circuit in order to substantively revise his opinion. The federal rule that allows trial judges to issue indicative rulings while their cases are on appeal, FirstEnergy said, applies in only a narrow set of circumstances in which the indicative ruling would not alter the issues under appellate consideration. Those are not the circumstances here, the company said, because the revision proposed by Robbins Geller directly affects the 6th Circuit case. If shareholders wanted Marbley to clarify his class certification decision, Sullivan & Cromwell said, they should have asked the judge to do so before the appeals court granted FirstEnergy's petition for interlocutory appeal. But with the Comcast issue now before the appeals court, FirstEnergy said, shareholders have no choice but to direct their arguments to the 6th Circuit. Moreover, according to FirstEnergy, the revision sought by Robbins Geller wouldn't eliminate the Comcast issue on appeal, because the company would still challenge the validity of shareholders' damages model. So instead of streamlining the appeal, the company said, Robbins Geller's proposed revision of the class certification opinion would waste everyone's time. Robbins Geller declined to comment on FirstEnergy's assertions. The company declined through a spokesperson to comment on the skirmish. I was already interested in how the 6th Circuit would handle FirstEnergy's Comcast arguments before Robbins Geller asked Marbley to revise his opinion. Now, thanks to the Streisand effect, I'm even more intrigued. [GN] FUNCTION(X) INC: Mule Files Appeal in Suit v. BOD ------------------------------------------------- ANDREW MULE has filed an appeal in his lawsuit captioned ANDREW MULE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN, PETER C. HORAN, MICHAEL MEYER, MITCHELL J. NELSON, BIRAME SOCK and FUNCTION(X), INC., Case No. 654984/2016 (N.Y. Sup., September 21, 2016). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Function(x) against the Company's Board of Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties as a result of a series of transactions designed to benefit Robert F. X. Sillerman. Mr. Sillerman is the Company's Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, majority shareholder with 65.9% of the Company's common stock and senior creditor. The other Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The transactions include the Company's entry into an agreement with Mr. Sillerman on July 8, 2016, to exchange his $34.8 million face amount of debt and 3,000 shares of the Company's Series C Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock owned by him into Common Stock at a conversion price $0.26 per share. Function(x) is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in New York City. Function(x), formerly doing business as DraftDay Fantasy Sports Inc. and, prior thereto, as Viggle, Inc., currently operates Wetpaint.com, an online destination for entertainment news for millennial women, covering the latest in television, music, and pop culture. Function(x) also operates Choose Digital, a digital marketplace platform that allows companies to incorporate digital content into existing rewards and loyalty programs in support of marketing and sales initiatives. The appellate case is captioned Andrew Mule vs. Robert F.X. Sillerman et al., Case No. 24-00625, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on January 31, 2024. [BN] Defendants-Respondents ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN, et al. are represented by: Michael Burrows, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP One Vanderbilt Ave. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 801-9200 E-mail: burrowsm@gtlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action for $350MM -------------------------------------------------------- Gerrit De Vynck, writing for The Washington Post, reports that Google agreed to pay $350 million to settle a lawsuit years after a security lapse meant the personal data of users of its now-defunct social media website Google Plus was exposed to the internet. The settlement comes just weeks after Google settled another lawsuit brought by users of its Chrome web browser who had their data tracked even though they were using private mode. That case could cost Google billions, though a specific amount has yet to be announced. People who bought Google's stock from April 23, 2018, to April 30, 2019, will be able to apply for a share of the settlement, according to a filing with the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California. Eligible investors will be notified by mail and a website with information will be created, the filing said. In 2018, Google realized that its systems had been exposing the data of millions of users of its Google Plus website to external developers for years, but executives chose not to notify the public or shareholders. An internal Google memo at the time pointed out that if the security lapse came to light, the company might be subject to the kind of scrutiny Facebook was then receiving for how its data was used by Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 election. Months later, the Wall Street Journal reported on the potential data breach, sending the company's stock plummeting and triggering a wave of negative media reports. Lawsuits ensued, and Google settled a class-action lawsuit by users whose data was affected for $7.5 million in 2018. Most people who applied only got a few dollars. The case that was settled on Feb. 5 was brought by the Rhode Island government, whose pension fund was an investor in Google. It wound its way through the courts for five years and Google tried unsuccessfully to appeal it to the Supreme Court before the settlement was reached. "We regularly identify and fix software issues, disclose information about them, and take these issues seriously," said José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson. "This matter concerns a product that no longer exists and we are pleased to have it resolved." Google and other Big Tech companies have faced intense legal and regulatory scrutiny for years, and Google has been forced to pay billions of dollars in fines for breaking competition laws in Europe. But the Feb. 5 judgment comes soon after two other major legal losses for the company. In December, a U.S. federal jury in San Francisco found Google guilty of being an illegal monopoly in the app store space. Later that month, the company agreed to pay an amount potentially in the billions to users of its Chrome web browser whom it tracked even though they were on "private" mode. In September, Google will face another trial, this one brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, which alleges the company has broken competition laws in the digital ad market. [GN] GRINDR LLC: Flynn Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Flynn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grindr, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00614 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2024) seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint alleges that Grindr collects, stores, possesses, otherwise obtains, uses, and disseminates its users' biometric data to, amongst other things, further enhance Grindr and its online dating platform. Grindr's unlawful collection, obtainment, storage, and use of its users' biometric data exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if Grindr or their third-party affiliates, database containing facial geometry scans or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, Grindr users, including Plaintiff, have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information, says the suit. Grindr is an Internet-based dating and social networking service and application that is geared toward LGBTQ+ individuals, with more than 13 million monthly active users worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leah M. Beligan, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300 Newport Beach, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 224-3881 E-mail: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net jbeligan@bbclawyers.net - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 ½ N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com - and - Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com HARPOON THERAPEUTICS: Monteverde & Associates Probes Merck Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are now investigating: BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BBAI), relating to its proposed merger with Pangiam Intermediate Holdings, LLC. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/bigbearai-holdings-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Harpoon Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: HARP), relating to its proposed sale to Merck. Under the terms of the agreement, HARP shareholders will receive $23.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/harpoon-therapeutics-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. FG Group Holdings Inc. (NYSE: FGH), relating to its proposed sale to FG Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, FGH shareholders will receive one share of FG Financial common stock per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/fg-group-holdings-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. PGT Innovations, Inc. (NYSE: PGTI), relating to its proposed sale to Masonite International Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, PGTI shareholders will receive $7.50 in common shares of Masonite and $33.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/pgt-innovations-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC Logo Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: Do you recover money for shareholders? Do you litigate and go to Court? Do you even go to the office and wear a suit? About Monteverde & Associates PC Juan Monteverde is a Spaniard and a born fighter. Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] HEALTHEC LLC: Latimer Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- GLENN LATIMER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00347-JKS-ESK (D.N.J., Jan. 22, 2024) seeks legal redress for the Defendant's negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment and aims to secure compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and other equitable remedies to improve Defendant's data security practices and prevent future data breaches. Between July 14, 2023, and July 23, 2023, cybercriminals compromised HealthEC's network, leading to unauthorized access and exfiltration of highly sensitive personal information of over 4.5 million individuals. This breach included the loss of control over personally identifiable information and private health information, collectively referred to as "Private Information." According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to safeguard the Private Information of both direct and indirect consumers, including those who never had a relationship with or consented to HealthEC's data practices. The Defendant's approach to data security was fundamentally flawed, characterized by outdated and inadequate cybersecurity measures, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to ensure that Defendant takes responsibility for the breach and implements robust security measures to safeguard sensitive data in the future, including mandatory audits and comprehensive credit monitoring services for the affected individuals. HealthEC, LLC provides services to health systems and care organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 55 Challenger Rd., 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com HYPHEN LLC: Files Motion to Dismiss Payday Loan Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremy Rosenblum, Esq., Jason Cover, Esq., Taylor Gess, Esq., James Kim, Esq., Josh McBeain, Esq., and Caleb Rosenberg, Esq., of Troutman Pepper, disclosed that recently, Lead Bank and its loan servicer Hyphen, LLC, an online lending platform operating Helix Financial, filed a motion to dismiss a purported class action alleging violations of the Georgia Installment Loan Act (GILA) and Georgia racketeering law arising out of a consumer installment or "payday loan." Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the loan agreement between herself and Lead Bank was "nothing more than a façade, and a temporary one at that" in an attempt to evade Georgia's restrictions on payday lending. In 2019, the plaintiff, a Georgia resident, entered into an installment loan with Lead Bank. Lead Bank is a Missouri-chartered bank and the loan agreement provided for Missouri law to govern. The loan agreement also specified that Hyphen would act as Lead Bank's servicer for the loan and contained an assignment clause allowing Lead Bank to transfer or assign its rights under the agreement. Four years later, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Middle District of Georgia, alleging that Hyphen is the "true lender" and that Hyphen violated the GILA by charging an interest rate higher than the rate allowed under the statute. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the annual percentage rate (APR) on her $700 loan was 547%, while the maximum allowable APR on such a loan in Georgia is capped at 10%. The plaintiff further alleged violations of Georgia's RICO statute against Lead Bank and Hyphen for purportedly conspiring to charge an interest rate higher than what is allowed by statute. In its motion to dismiss, Lead Bank argues that, as a state-chartered bank, it is authorized under § 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to charge interest on a loan "at the rate allowed by the laws of the State . . . where the bank is located." In other words, it is allowed to export the maximum interest rate of the state of Missouri to the plaintiff's state of Georgia. Further, Lead Bank invokes the "valid-when-made" rule, providing that if the interest rate in the original loan agreement was not usurious, then the loan does not become usurious upon its assignment to Hyphen. But the plaintiff argues that the legal arrangement between Lead Bank and Hyphen was a façade that violates Georgia's Payday Lender Statute, specifically, Sec. 16-17-2(a), which applies to any arrangement in which a de facto lender purports to act as the agent for an exempt entity and provides that the "purported agent shall be considered the de facto lender if the entire circumstances of the transaction show that the purported agent holds, acquires, or maintains a predominant economic interest in the revenues generated by the loan." The plaintiff alleges that Hyphen is in fact the "true lender" as it is responsible for all material aspects of the transaction, "i.e., the lead generation, loan origination, servicing, and collection of the loans. In other words, the bank is a front for [Hyphen]." Neither the complaint nor the motion to dismiss describe Lead Bank's continuing economic interest in the subject loan. Our Take: With more and more states enacting "predominant economic interest" and "true lender" tests aimed at bank partnerships, we expect to see a rise in this type of litigation. As discussed here, late last year a California state court denied a preliminary injunction sought by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation in its long-running litigation against Opportunity Financial (OppFi) contending that OppFi is the "true lender," and therefore subject to California usury limits, on loans originated by OppFi's Utah bank partner. The Georgia case presents another vehicle for courts to address this issue. We will be following it closely. [GN] IN-FOCUS SOLUTIONS: Schanen Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ KAYA SCHANEN, Plaintiff v. IN-FOCUS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00259 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 23, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, for Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours in a workweek without the proper overtime compensation. However, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all the hours she worked. The Defendant also retaliated against Plaintiff when she filed an internal complaint about the non-payment of her wages and overtime. Plaintiff Schanen worked for the Defendant as a business development representative from approximately April of 2023 until her termination in September of 2023. In-Focus Solutions, LLC is a marketing company that employs customer service agents to connect customers with car maintenance shops and car dealerships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com INMARKET MEDIA: Tracks App Users' Geolocation, Class Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action claims digital advertising agency InMarket Media has unlawfully tracked and profited from the sale of consumer data through the use of "spyware" incorporated into more than 300 third-party mobile apps. The 20-page lawsuit alleges the marketing platform has run afoul of California privacy laws by tracking app users' geolocation and other information through its software development kit (SDK)—a collection of software tools that can be embedded into a third-party app to collect analytics data. Once InMarket's SDK is incorporated into an app, the spyware technology automatically transmits an app user's precise location back to the company in real time, the suit shares. According to the case, a third-party app that utilizes the SDK requests from the user access to the location data generated by their mobile device. "Critically, if the user allows access, the InMarket SDK receives the device's precise latitude and longitude, along with a timestamp and unique mobile device identifier, as often as the mobile device's operating system provides it—ranging from almost no collection when the device is idle, to every few seconds when the device is actively moving—and transmits it directly to [InMarket's] servers," the complaint relays. The hundreds of apps that have incorporated the InMarket spyware tool have been downloaded to and used by more than 390 million unique devices since 2017, the filing stresses, meaning InMarket has been able to collect a significant cache of user data during that time. The lawsuit claims the company has unlawfully profited from this data by selling it to third parties and using it for targeted advertising purposes. In addition, InMarket "does little" to confirm that apps that use its SDK obtain consent from consumers before allowing the defendant access to their geolocation and other data, the suit contends. What's more, InMarket retains user information for five years before deleting it—an "unreasonably long retention period" that "significantly increases the risk that this sensitive data could be disclosed, misused, and linked back to the consumer," the case argues. Per the complaint, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took action against InMarket in January of this year over allegations that the company failed to make proper disclosures to consumers and acquire consent from app users before collecting their location data. As part of the proposed settlement, InMarket will be prohibited from selling or licensing any precise location data, and from selling, licensing, transferring or sharing any product or service that categorizes or targets consumers based on their location data, the FTC announced. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose data, including but not limited to their geolocation data, was sold by InMarket Media without their consent. [GN] JLT MOBILE: State Councils Back Settlement in Breach Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance.com.au reports that the Victorian Supreme Court has approved the settlement of a local government class action against JLT, with the proceeding to be discontinued with no orders on costs. A notice was sent to participating councils last year saying the parties had agreed to settle, and advising of the opportunity to object before a court hearing scheduled for November. Justice Kevin Lyons says in a January 19 decision that none of the 16 group members, in addition to lead plaintiffs Moira Shire Council and Hobsons Bay City Council, opposed the proposal. "I am satisfied that I should approve the discontinuance of this proceeding with no further order as to costs," he said. The end of the Victorian action follows JLT's victory in a NSW class action, where councils argued the broker had breached its duties in failing to point out cheaper insurance alternatives in the market compared with its pooled scheme. The NSW Supreme Court's Justice Kate Williams found JLT was not acting as a broker for individual councils in conflict with its role as an adviser for the Statewide mutual scheme. Justice Lyons says while the NSW and Victorian proceedings were not "precisely the same", there was overlap of legal and evidentiary issues. "As a consequence, after the notice period for appeal from the NSW proceeding elapsed, the plaintiffs commenced negotiations . . . to settle this proceeding. This resulted in JLT making an offer that the proceeding be discontinued with no order as to costs," he says. The notice sent to councils last year said discontinuance would not affect their right to take individual action against JLT, but given time limits to bring claims they should seek legal advice as soon as possible. JLT sought an order on the limitation period, but Justice Lyons said its application was mainly to address any risk that the period would continue in perpetuity, which the decision found would not be the case. "JLT will have comfort from these reasons that the limitation period resumes upon notice of the filing of the notice of discontinuance, with a consequence that this proposed order is no longer necessary." [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Employee Health Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Redmond, writing for NJBiz, reports that Johnson & Johnson is facing a proposed class action lawsuit from an employee over claims the New Brunswick-based pharmaceutical and medical technologies company mismanaged its prescription drug benefits program, which cost employees millions of dollars in overpayments. According to a complaint filed Feb. 5 in federal court in Camden, by failing to negotiate the best generic drug prices for workers on its health plan, J&J breached its duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. ERISA requires self-funded employers acting as health plan fiduciaries to make an effort to find the lowest costs, compare alternative providers in the marketplace and continuously monitor expenses to ensure they are reasonable. Brought by Ann Lewandowski, who joined Johnson & Johnson in 2021 and works on health care policy in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the complaint says the company's plan pays its pharmacy benefits manager, Cigna's Express Scripts Inc., unreasonable and inflated prices for dozens of generic specialty drugs. That, in turn, harms employees through higher costs, premiums, deductibles and copays, as well as stunted wage growth, according to the filing. In her complaint, Lewandowski cited a few examples of what the plan paid for, including $10,200 for a multiple sclerosis drug, teriflunomide, which costs no more than $77 out of pocket at pharmacies, and $1,629 for a 90-pill prescription of HIV antiviral drug abacavir-lamivudine, which retails for about $180. "No prudent fiduciary would agree to make its plan and beneficiaries pay a price that is 250 times higher than the price available to any individual who just walks into a pharmacy and pays out-of-pocket," Lewandowski's lawyers wrote in the complaint. According to the suit, Lewandowski is currently on leave from the company "due to a dispute regarding a reasonable accommodation for a medical condition." In addition to unspecified damages and statutory penalties for the violation of the ERISA, the suit proposes class action status to represent other J&J health plan members who faced high costs. "The allegations and legal theories asserted in the complaint are meritless and, therefore, we will be moving to dismiss the complaint in its entirety," a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson told NJBIZ. [GN] JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Lewandowski Sues Over Mismanaged ERISA Plans ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANN LEWANDOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, THE PENSION & BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, PETER FASOLO, WARREN LUTHER, LISA BLAIR DAVIS, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00671 (D.N.J., February 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and failure to provide plan documents under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and mismanaged Johnson and Johnson's prescription-drug benefits program, costing their ERISA plans and their employees millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher coinsurance, higher copays, and lower wages or limited wage growth. The Defendants failed to exercise prudence at multiple steps in the process of administering prescription-drug benefits. As a result, the plans and beneficiaries suffered losses compared to prudent alternatives, says the suit. Johnson and Johnson is a medical technologies and pharmaceutical company headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Casper, Esq. WHEELER, DIULIO & BARNABEI, PC 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 971-1000 E-mail: mcasper@wdblegal.com - and - Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 1001 G. Street NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Employees Sue Over Unpaid Commissions ------------------------------------------------------- Joe Schulz, writing for Wisconsin Public Radio, reports that at least 10 Johnson Controls employees have sued the company, alleging they're owed thousands of dollars in unpaid commissions. A federal lawsuit from six sales representatives was filed in the U.S. Eastern District Court of Wisconsin last month. Four other lawsuits from sales representatives have been filed in Michigan since mid-January. The lawsuits center around changes Johnson Controls -- a producer of fire, HVAC and security equipment with corporate offices in Glendale -- made to its long-standing commissions policy. Federal lawsuit outlines policy changes For the last couple of decades, the company paid commissions to salespeople over the course of a project's contract, with about 20 to 25 percent of the commission coming after the contract closed, the federal lawsuit says. The remaining 75 to 80 percent of the commission -- known as a "backlog" -- would be paid over the life of the project, which could range from months to years, according to the suit. Sales representatives allegedly had backlogs ranging from a few thousand dollars to some that were "well into the six figures." In November, court documents said Johnson Controls announced it would change its commission policy for the 2024 fiscal year, eliminating the use of the backlog and shifting to a plan where commission is paid when a project is booked instead of over time. Under the new policy, the federal lawsuit said the company continued servicing contracts and working on projects where "billions of dollars" in commissions were due, but went back on its promise to pay those commissions to workers. "Unlike with plan changes in previous years, (Johnson Controls) unilaterally determined that commission for any sales made during previous years under prior versions of the plan would not continue to be governed by the plans in effect at the time of the sale," the suit said. That meant sales representatives' commissions backlogs would no longer be paid out. Instead, employees would receive a "bridge payment" to assist in the transition to the new commission structure, court documents said. But the federal lawsuit says bridge payments the six employees received in November were only about 22 percent of their accrued backlog. The suit says the company has scheduled two more bridge payments for June 2025 and June 2026, each representing 14 percent of employees' backlogs. If those payments are made, the suit estimates sales representatives would still only see about 50 percent of what they're owed. The federal suit is asking for damages from Johnson Controls and a court ruling requiring the company to pay the commissions. It also asks for an order granting class-action status to commissioned sales staff across the country. Michigan attorney: Policy change constitutes wage theft In a statement, Johnson Controls said it routinely assesses its practices to support the growth and achievements of its employees. "We modified our sales incentive program to better align with our company strategy to deliver smart, healthy and more sustainable environments for our customers," the statement read. "We will continue to assist our sales organization to ensure a seamless transition to our revised competitive model." Attorney Heidi Sharp, whose firm is representing four Johnson Control employees in four lawsuits in Michigan, said the company has effectively wiped the outstanding backlogs from its books. "They've even used the term that they've ‘sun-downed' that (old commission) plan and therefore they're not going to pay my clients or any of the other sales persons across the country," Sharp said. "Our position is that this is a retroactive change to their commission plan," she added. "The jobs have been sold, the work has been done and they are retroactively now trying to say that they're going to change how they paid the sales persons for the jobs that they sold." Sharp said the lawsuits in Michigan aim to help the sales representatives receive the entire commission they've earned. She also said Michigan has a state law that could require Johnson Controls to pay twice the amounts due with a cap at $100,000. "Johnson Controls has the money and yet they're still refusing to pay our clients their earned commissions," Sharp said. Sharp added that all of her clients are currently employed by Johnson Controls and had taken steps to address the issue before filing a lawsuit against their employer. But she also said the employees felt they had no option but to pursue litigation. "I think these guys are brave," she said. "We're looking at cases for any of the sales people who feel that they're owed commissions, and we're going to continue to do so because we see this as wage theft." [GN] JOSSELYNE INC: Fails to Properly Pay Interns, Raghnal Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- AALIYAH RAGHNAL, ALEX MALCOLM MILLS, and RACHEL CHAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOSSELYNE, INC. d.b.a. JHA MANAGEMENT or JOSSELYNE HERMAN & ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00825 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as unpaid interns at any time between 2020 and 2023. Josselyne, Inc., doing business as JHA Management or Josselyne Herman & Associates, is a talent management company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Q. Davis, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 E-mail: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over 2022 Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Lerner, writing for Business Insurance, reports that Keenan & Associates, a unit of AssuredPartners Inc., is facing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of clients alleging that the brokerage failed to implement sufficient cyber security measures and was too slow to disclose a 2022 data breach. The suit, Matthew Rutledge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keenan & Associates, was filed Feb. 2 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It stems from a cyber breach last summer that Keenan notified affected individuals about on Jan. 26. The breach may have affected more than 1.5 million individuals. The suit alleges the data breach "was a direct result of Keenan's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' Private Information." In addition, "Keenan has acknowledged that the cybersecurity attack occurred at various times between August 21, 2023, and August 27, 2023, but that it waited until January 26, 2024, to begin contacting Class Members," the suit states. The suit seeks statutory, actual, and punitive damages, attorneys fees and costs, and credit monitoring services, among other things. Keenan did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] KOSHA FIT: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- MARISA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOSHA FIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-000860 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Jan. 22, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted Kosha Fit and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls and that did not connect the recipient to either the caller or the Defendant. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages for each violation. Kosha Fit, LLC manufactures products for yoga and pilates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com L'OREAL USA: Seeks Dismissal of Hair Relaxer Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Mike Vilensky, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that L'Oreal USA Inc., Revlon, Inc., and other hair product companies are asking a federal court to dismiss a class action complaint alleging the companies sold relaxer products that led to an increased risk of uterine and ovarian cancer. Thirty-four women sued L'Oreal and other companies earlier this year, alleging hair relaxer products lacked sufficient warning about the alleged cancer link, "target[ed] women of color," and caused them economic harm. In their class action complaint, the women argued they "paid more for the Toxic Hair Relaxer Products than they would have paid had they known about the . . . unsafe . . . nature of the products." [GN] LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses VPPA Violation Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther of DuaneMorris.com report that In Brown v. Learfield Communications, LLC, et al., No. 1:23-CV-00374, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15587 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2024), Judge David A. Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Defendants Learfield Communications, LLC and Sidearm Sports, LLC's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) class claim. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to plead facts to support his claim under the VPPA because he did not allege that he was a subscriber to audio-visual goods or services themselves, just a newsletter that contained links to publicly-available content on The University of Texas's website. Defendants in VPPA class actions can utilize this decision as a roadmap when preparing motions to dismiss. Case Background Defendants Learfield Communications, LLC and Sidearm Sports, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") operated the University of Texas at Austin's ("UT") website (the "UT Website"). Id. at 2. The UT Website contains software that enables Facebook to track the activity of UT Website users on other websites. Id. Defendants invite UT Website visitors to subscribe to emailed newsletters. Id. at 3. The newsletters provide links to various videos, clips, and other content on the UT Website related to UT Athletics. Id. Plaintiff Adam Brown subscribes to UT's emailed newsletter. Id. In April 2023, Plaintiff filed a class action against Defendants UT, UT Athletics, Learfield, and Sidearm alleging that they violated the VPPA by purportedly exposing the subscribers' personal identification information and gathering marketing data without consent. Id. at 4. In June 2023, UT and UT Athletics filed a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. Id. at 2 The motion was granted in July. Id. In September, Defendants Learfield and Sidearm filed a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7). Id. The Court's Decision The Court denied Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7) motions to dismiss. It held that neither Learfield or Sidearm was entitled to immunity as an "arm of the state," and that neither UT or UT Athletics were indispensable parties to the lawsuit. Id. at 7-10. The Court, however, granted Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff was not a "consumer" under the VPPA because he failed to allege a factual nexus between the subscription and Defendants' allegedly actionable video content. Id. at 2, 19, 26. To state a claim under the VPPA, the Court noted that a plaintiff must allege that a defendant "(1) is a video tape service provider; (2) who knowingly disclosed to any person; (3) personally identifiable information; (4) concerning any consumer." Id. at 10-11; 18 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1). Under the VPPA, a "consumer" is "any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider." 18 U.S.C. Section 2710(a)(1). The Court reasoned that the VPPA "only applies to consumers (including subscribers) of audio video services" because, when reading the term "consumer" in the full context of the VPPA, "a reasonable reader would understand the definition of 'consumer' to apply to a renter, purchaser or subscriber of audio-visual goods or services, and not goods or services writ large." Id. at * 19 (emphasis original) (quoting Carter v. Scripps Networks, LLC, 2023 WL 3061858, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2023)). The Court concluded that Plaintiff was not a "consumer" under the VPPA because (i) the newsletter did not contain videos, just links to videos on the UT Website; and (ii) the linked videos were available for any member of the public to see on the UT Website, not just those who subscribed to the newsletter. Id. at 26-28. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Plaintiff was not a subscriber to audio-visual goods or services, just a newsletter. Id. at 28-29. Ultimately, because Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support a claim under the VPPA, the Court granted Defendants 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 29. Implications For Companies The decision in Brown v. Learfield serves as a roadmap for defendants in VPPA class actions to utilize when preparing motions to dismiss. This case is also important as it adds the Western District of Texas to a growing number of federal courts that strictly construe the VPPA to audio-visual materials, not links to publically-available videos in newsletters. See, e.g., Carter v. Scripps Networks, LLC, No. 22-CV-2031, 2023 WL 3061858, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2023); Jefferson v. Healthline Media, Inc., No. 3:22-CV-05059, 2023 WL 3668522, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2023); Gardener v. MeTV, No. 22-CV-5963, 2023 WL 4365901, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2023). [GN] LETICA CORPORATION: Faces Lawrence FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS LAWRENCE and LAWRENCE FLAIM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LETICA CORPORATION and BERRY GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00027-MPB-CSW (S.D. Ind., February 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Lawrence was employed as a machine operator employee at Letica Corporation's Fremont, Indiana manufacturing facility between August 2022 and November 2022. Plaintiff Flaim was employed as a forklift operator at Berry Global, Inc.'s Pittston, Pennsylvania manufacturing facility since April 2023. Letica Corporation is a manufacturer of packaging materials, with its principal office at 101 Oakley Street, Evansville, Indiana. Berry Global, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaging materials, with its principal office at 101 Oakley Street, Evansville, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher S. Wolcott, Esq. THE WOLCOTT LAW FIRM LLC 450 East 96th Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 500-0700 Facsimile: (317) 342-2799 - and - Matt S. Grimsley, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: matt@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarawfirm.com LG CORP: Indiana Consumers Join Class Suit Over Faulty Fridges -------------------------------------------------------------- Kara Kenney of WRTV reports that some Indiana consumers say their refrigerators conked out after only five years. Ford Hebner of Cicero and Dale Bell of Wheatfield are among more than 100 consumers who have filed a class action lawsuit against LG, Kenmore's parent company, as well as several retailers. The 191-page lawsuit, updated in September 2023, focuses on LG's linear compressor, a part that is supposed to keep the fridge and your food cold. The lawsuit alleges the compressors are faulty and defective. Ford Hebner of Cicero says his household goes through a lot of groceries. "I still have four kids that live at home," said Hebner. "They're constantly using the fridge. They can eat." Hebner purchased an LG French Door fridge in 2018 for $1,433.79, records show. Five years later, the fridge stopped cooling, he said. "To come home and it smells like rotten hamburger, because that's what it was," said Hebner. He contacted LG and said they wanted to charge him more than $700 in labor. "Well, the fridge was about $1500, so why would we spend that?" said Hebner. Something similar happened to Dale Bell in Wheatfield, Indiana. "The temperature inside was 60 degrees," said Bell. "I knew there was something seriously wrong with it." Bell said he could not get LG to fix the fridge or compensate him. "They could not find anybody in this region willing to come out and even look at it," said Bell. "It's rather frustrating." Bell and Hebner are among more than 100 consumers listed in a class action lawsuit filed against LG, Kenmore's parent company Transform, as well as retailers that sell the refrigerators with linear compressors including Costco, Lowe's, Best Buy and Home Depot. "I wanted to be involved in Indiana, mainly because it's not good that they're still selling these things," said Hebner. Beverly Hills attorney Azar Mouzari said their class action lawsuit seeks more than just refunds for consumers. "We want LG to stop selling this defective product," said Mouzari. The class action lawsuit, which was amended in September 2023, said LG has settled at least three other lawsuits about its compressors. "It's to the point that LG knows it has a problem and it's known that it's had a problem for over a decade," said Mouzari. The latest lawsuit focuses on LG and Kenmore fridges with linear compressors purchased from 2018 to present. "We currently have class representatives who are living out of coolers in their garage," said Mouzari. Eric Schleich in Florida had to use a cooler after his LG fridge stopped working. "Things went into the sink with ice, and we had a couple of small coolers," said Schleich. Our sister station in Tampa, WFTS, spoke with him about his LG fridge that conked out. "There are people living on limited budgets and fixed incomes that are really being hurt by their business practices," said Schleich. WRTV Investigates reached out to LG, Kenmore's parent company, and the retailers named as defendants in the lawsuit. A Home Depot spokesperson told WRTV they "just can't comment on ongoing litigation." A spokesperson for LG told WRTV he shared our request with the appropriate team. In a response to the court in June 2023, an attorney for LG called the class action lawsuit a "scattershot, unfocused complaint" and "threadbare allegations." As Ford Hebner waits for the lawsuit to play out, he bought a new fridge—not an LG. He's finding it difficult to trust it will stay cold, so he placed thermometers inside. "If you go away you don't want to come home to spoiled food," said Hebner. [GN] MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Oral Argument Heard in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey Williams disclosed that on January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Case Number 22-1165, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al. v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al. Before the Court was whether a "failure to make a disclosure under Item 303 of the SEC regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10b of the Exchange Act, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement." Between February 2016, and February 2018, Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) in various Management's Discussion and Analysis allegedly "disclosed a few known trends that would affect their bottom line but omitted" a new rule "that would decimate 40 percent of their revenue" to its investor, Moab Partners, L.P. Moab, as the lead plaintiff of a class action, pursued MIC through a private cause of action under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, alleging that these omissions were misrepresentations that afforded them a private right of action. Item 303 of the SEC Regulation S-K, known as the Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), requires that management provide investors with an understanding of trends that could affect the business's financial condition. There is currently no recognized private cause of action for alleged violations under Item 303. Instead, the SEC has the power to enforce investors' rights under Item 303. Rule 10b-5(b) of the Exchange Act, on the other hand, provides a private civil cause of action for investors when the company in question "make[s] any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact[.]" MIC's private lawsuit pursued Moab Partners under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act for statements made in the context of an MD&A governed by Item 303. This lawsuit therefore raised two issues: (1) whether these alleged omissions qualified as misleading statements giving rise to this private cause of action, and (2) whether there existed a private cause of action for statements made during the MD&A. The Supreme Court granted certiorari of the following question: "Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding . . . that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 can support a private claim under Section l0b, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement." With regards to the first question, the parties at oral argument appeared to agree on one narrow issue: there must be a statement in order for a class action to move forward on the basis of a misleading statement. The parties, however, disagreed as to whether Moab could meet that standard in this case. MIC argued that there was no specific statement that Moab could point to in this case that was misleading. Moab Partners, on the other hand, argued that the entirety of the statements regarding the few known trends, while omitting a trend that would decimate close to half of MIC's revenue, was a classic lie by omission, or a "half-truth[]." Justice Kagan recognized that the parties' argument centered on "just sort of how narrow or how capricious we should understand the requirement that there needs to be another statement that's rendered misleading[.]" With regards to the second question, MIC argued that the law was clear that the remedy for this cause of action is through the SEC, and the Court has been "loath to expand" private causes of action when none is given in the law. Moab argued that giving the SEC the sole power to pursue these causes of action was an inadequate remedy. Moab asserted that the SEC's staff is too "meager compared the resources and opportunities for institutional investors . . . to bring private actions." The United States, appearing as amicus curiae agreed that there should be a private cause of action, stating that "the SEC's resources in this area . . . are limited[,]" and the "Court has repeatedly said that private litigation under Rule 10b-5 is an essential supplement to SEC enforcement actions." The Supreme Court's decision may have sweeping implications on investors' rights. For example, a decision in Moab's favor might incentivize managers like MIC to limit their statements to their investors for fear of "omitting" a material fact. On the other hand, such a decision in favor of Moab could require managers to transparently disclose trends that would affect a company's bottom line. Moreover, if the Supreme Court also holds that there is a private cause of action for alleged misleading statements made during the MD&A, this could greatly expand the rights of private investors. [GN] MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP: Faces Second Class Action Over Emissions Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Zachariah, writing for Drive, reports that Mercedes-Benz is at the centre of a second class-action lawsuit over alleged emissions fraud -- though it's not clear whether the lawsuit will be allowed to continue. More than a year after a class-action lawsuit was filed against Mercedes-Benz over alleged diesel emissions cheating, a second class-action has been filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria. According to a report from website Lawyerly, law firm Piper Alderman is pursuing the class-action against Mercedes-Benz, claiming the German car giant deliberately fitted software to some of its vehicles in an effort to side-step laboratory emissions tests. The filing comes 14 months after law firm Gerard Malouf and Partners filed its $100 million class-action against Mercedes-Benz over alleged emissions "cheat devices" fitted to models sold in Australia between 2008 and 2018. Car makers have been under increased scrutiny following the so-called 'Dieselgate' scandal, in which the Volkswagen Group and its brands were found to have fitted vehicles with software specifically designed to meet emissions regulations in lab tests, while far exceeding maximum levels of pollutants in real-world driving. It's estimated the scandal cost the Volkswagen Group $AU46.5 billion in fines, compensation, and vehicle buybacks – including a $AU125 million penalty in Australia, and a further $120 million to settle five class actions. In January 2024, it was revealed Germany's transport authorities were investigating BMW over discrepancies in tailpipe emissions from a turbo-diesel engine fitted to its X3 SUV built between 2010 and 2014. It's understood Gerard Malouf and Partners are also investigating a potential class-action against BMW Australia for alleged emissions cheating, and previously filed a $100 million case against Toyota's truck division Hino over similar allegations. In 2022, Hino admitted to having falsified data on engine testing dating back to 2003 in order to pass emissions and fuel efficiency standards. However, it's not clear whether the latest class action against Mercedes-Benz will be granted the opportunity to be heard before a judge. In recent times, the courts have taken a dim view of multiple competing class actions -- with some judges opting to disallow some overlapping cases. [GN] MERIT ENERGY: Faces Fink Suit Over Underpaid Royalties ------------------------------------------------------ PHILLIP J. FINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02028-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan., Jan. 22, 2024) seeks to recover royalties underpaid because of illegal deductions made to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff and the Class members are royalty owners under oil-and-gas leases and in wells subject to a class action settlement from Littell v. OXY USA, Inc., No. 98-CV-51 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Stevens Cty.), also referred here as "Littell Settlement." The Littell Settlement contains "go-forward" provisions that control whether Oxy and its successors and assigns, including Merit, may deduct from Plaintiff's and the Class members' royalty the costs of certain services to prepare the gas for market. Specifically, the Littell Settlement does not allow Merit to deduct Gathering Charges in excess of $0.15/MMBtu, and it bars the deduction of Fuel Costs, as those terms are defined in the Littell Settlement. After Littell, Oxy faced multiple class actions alleging improper cost deductions from royalty, including Gathering Charges and Fuel Costs under the Littell Settlement. After class certification was upheld by the Kansas Court of Appeals, Oxy settled the class cases. Merit purchased Plaintiff's and the Class members' leases and wells from Oxy in 2014. Merit has deducted and continues to deduct from Plaintiff's and the Class members' royalty Gathering Charges in excess of $0.15/MMBtu and Fuel Costs in breach of the Littell Settlement. This action seeks to recover the royalties underpaid because of those deductions, says the suit. Merit Energy Company, LLC operates as a private equity firm. The Company specializes in acquisition, operation, and direct investments in oil and gas properties. Merit Energy serves clients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Scott B. Goodger, Esq. Nathan A. Kakazu, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com sgoodger@midwest-law.com nkakazu@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com NEW TAVARES: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Toribio Says -------------------------------------------------------- FELIX TORIBIO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. NEW TAVARES RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a TAVARES RESTAURANT, and JULIO TAVARES, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00500 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the state and federal law by failing to pay him and similarly situated employees proper minimum and overtime wages, failing to furnish accurate wage statements, and failing to furnish accurate wage notices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook from February 13, 2019 to April 16, 2023. New Tavares Restaurant Corp, is a New York corporation that operates a restaurant in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Weiss, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Feb. 6, disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Lemm v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 24cv903, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired New York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYCB" or the "Company") (NYSE: NYCB) securities between March 1, 2023 and January 30, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from February 6, 2024, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your NYCB investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/New-York-Community-Bancorp-Inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On March 20, 2023, the Company's entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement to acquire certain assets and assume certain liabilities of Signature Bridge Bank, N.A. ("Signature"). On January 31, 2024, before the market opened, NYCB announced its fiscal fourth quarter 2023 financial results. The Company reported a fourth quarter net loss of $252 million due to "a $552 million provision for loan losses," which was "primarily attributable to higher net charge-offs" and "a significant increase in the ACL [allowance for credit losses]" coverage ratio. Additionally, the Company disclosed that it would cut its quarterly dividend to $0.05 per common share. The Company further explained that these actions were "necessary enhancements" after NYCB "crossed th[e] important threshold [of becoming a $100 billion bank] sooner than anticipated as a result of the Signature transaction." Crossing this $100 billion threshold subjected NYCB to enhanced banking standards and requirements. On this news, NYCB's stock price fell $3.90, or 37.57%, to close at $6.47 per share on January 31, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing higher net charge-offs and deterioration in its office portfolio; (2) that, as a result, NYCB was reasonably likely to incur higher loan losses; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing and NYCB's status as Category IV bank, the Company was reasonably likely to increase its allowance for credit losses; (4) that the Company's financial results would be adversely affected; (5) that, to preserve capital, the Company would reduce quarterly common dividend to $0.05 per common share; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired NYCB securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] NOVATECH: Lures Investors to Ponzi Scheme, Mullins Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- AVIS MULLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVATECH, CYNTHIA PETION, EDDY PETION, RICARDO ROY, JEAN MARTIN ZIZI, TRAVIS BIEBERITZ, NOVATECH, LTD, NOVATECH ADVISORS, LLC, NOVA PAY, LLC, NOVATRADING OU, SMART BIT INC., DEBORAH BRASIL, FRANTZ CICERON, CICERON FRANTZ & ASSOCIATES INC., PAUL J. DeRENZO, JOHN GAROFANO, BOB ST. LOUIS, JAMES CORBETT, and JOHN DOE 1-500, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00824 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for fraud, civil conspiracy to commit fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Federal RICO), the New York Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding NovaTech's High Yield Investment Program (HYIP) to attract investors between January 2019 and through January 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (a) Novatech is not registered hedge fund in the United States; (b) NovaTech is not a registered investment adviser; (c) NovaTech is not a registered broker; (d) the offer or sale of NovaTech's securities were not qualified in anywhere in the United States; (e) failed to provide any qualifications to substantiate claims that investors' funds are managed and traded by experienced traders; (f) in March 2011, Cynthia Petion and Eddy Petion filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York; (g) in August 2019, a debt buyer sued Cynthia Petion in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Civil Division, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; (h) in July 2018, a mortgage lender sued Eddy Petion and Cynthia Petion in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Civil Division, in an action to foreclose a defaulted mortgage on residential real property held by Eddy Petion and Cynthia Petion; (i) on August 9, 2022, NovatechFX received a securities fraud warning from the Central Bank of Russia; (j) on October 11, 2022, British Columbia Securities Commission warned against NovatechFX as a Ponzi Scheme; and (k) on November 27, 2022, Novatechfx received a Cease and Desist Letter from California Department of Financial Protection & Innovation and cited the company and its officers for fraud. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant damages, says the suit. NovaTech, LTD is a cryptocurrency trading platform business. Novatech Advisors, LLC is a corporation based in Florida. Nova Pay, LLC is a corporation based in Florida. NovaTrading OU is a company based in Estonia. Smart Bit Inc. is a cryptocurrency company doing business in Florida. Frantz Ciceron & Associates, Inc. is a company located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wil Morris, Esq. MORRIS LEGAL, PC 2800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 530 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 444-3437 Facsimile: (305) 444-3457 E-mail: Wilm@MorrislegalFla.com ONEHOPE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Morgan Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PARADISE MORGAN, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. ONEHOPE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00759 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2024) asserts that the Defendant's website, onehopewine.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on onehopewine.com, most recently on December 18, 2023; December 27, 2023; and January 8, 2024, but was unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers on the Defendant's website. Amongst other access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to make an online purchase of the Best Sellers, the Vintner Sauvignon Blanc wine and the OH Women's White Crewneck Tee. Unless the Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on onehopewine.com, the suit claims. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Plaintiff cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen reader software. Onehope provides to the public a website known as onehopewine.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com OPEN DOOR: Sharma Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- MALA SHARMA, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OPEN DOOR NY HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00497 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2024) is a collective and class action on behalf of similarly situated employees to seek redress for systematic late payment of minimum and/or overtime wages against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a home attendant, personal care aide and/or home health aide providing personal home health care, companionship and assistance to Defendant's disabled and elderly clients. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from May 2019 until present. Open Door NY Home Care Services, Inc. is a provider of home health care for the elderly and infirm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wims, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS 1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11233 Telephone: (646) 393-9550 PAIGE LLC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Elder Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIAH ELDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAIGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-000898 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., January 22, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted Paige and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls and that did not connect the recipient to either the caller or the Defendant. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages for each violation. Paige, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company, which sells various goods through its online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com PIGGLY WIGGLY: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Grede Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- JANE GREDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIGGLY WIGGLY MIDWEST, LLC, DTN FOODS, LLC, and MLS FOODS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-76 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 19, 2024) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendants operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee working primarily at Defendants' Fond du Lac, Wisconsin location from year 2016 to December 8, 2023. She performed compensable work as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the positions of Supervisor and Manager. Piggly Wiggly Midwest, LLC is a grocery store company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com PLANET HOME: Faces Class Action Over November 2023 Cyberattack -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Planet Home Lending faces a class action over a November 2023 cyberattack wherein hackers gained access to highly confidential customer data. The 41-page lawsuit alleges the Connecticut-based mortgage company failed to implement "basic" cybersecurity protocols to protect the sensitive information in its care, which was apparently stored "unsecured and unencrypted" in its network. In a January 2024 notice letter sent to victims, Planet Home Lending reported that notorious cybercriminal group LockBit had gained access to its computer systems on November 15, 2023 via a vulnerability in a third-party vendor's software program. The notice relays that during the ransomware attack, the threat actor accessed a folder storing certain loan files containing customer data. Per the notice letter, the personal information stored in the compromised loan files included customers' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, loan numbers and financial account numbers. According to the suit, the company's data breach notice letter was delayed and inadequate. Although Planet Home Lending purports to have discovered the incident on November 15, 2023, it waited until late January of this year to distribute notice letters to affected individuals, the case contends. In addition, the notice letter provides only "generic steps" that victims can take to protect themselves from the potential misuse of their information, the complaint asserts. The plaintiff, a Florida resident, says he received notice from the company on January 24, informing him that his personal data had been compromised in the breach. Like other victims, the man now faces a lifelong risk of identity theft and fraud as a result of the defendant's negligence, the filing charges. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose private information was accessed and/or acquired as a result of the Planet Home Lending data breach, including those who were sent notice of the incident. Mathis v. Planet Home Lending, LLC FILED: JANUARY 31, 2024 Case No. 3:24-CV-00127) [GN] POLICYGENIUS LLC: De Felice Balks at Disclosure of Private Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW DE FELICE JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POLICYGENIUS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00560-FLA-BFM (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought to address Defendant's improper and illegal disclosure of Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers' personally identifiable information and/or protected health information to Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta and other third parties as a result of their use of Defendant's website, www.policygenius.com. The Defendant owns and controls www.policygenius.com, wherein customers are asked to communicate highly personal and sensitive information in order to obtain quotes for various types of life insurance and disability insurance. At the outset, Policygenius assures Website users that their information will be kept confidential, and the phrase "Your information is kept secure" appears next to an image of a padlock on the Website's homepage. Despite these representations, Defendant intentionally installed a tracking pixel on its Website to surreptitiously duplicate and send its customers' private communications to Facebook, the contents of which include Private Information and protected PHI/individually identifiable medical information, says the suit. The Plaintiff reasonably believed that Policygenius would maintain the confidentiality of his private information and not share such information with Facebook, a social media giant with a track record of disregarding privacy rights. The Plaintiff and California residents, hence, were harmed by Defendant's conduct and seek relief as alleged herein. Policygenius, LLC is an online insurance technology company that specializes in providing life, home, and auto insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com POWER COOLING: Mohabir Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers/Mechanics ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MOHABIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWER COOLING INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00843 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. Mr. Mohabir worked for the Defendant as a laborer and mechanic from 2003 to 2010 and again from May 2019 to July 2023. Power Cooling Inc. is a heating, ventilating & air conditioning service provider, with its principal place of business in Queens, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Menken, Esq. MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP 80 Pine Street, 33nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 E-mail: bmenken@nyemployeelaw.com PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Ford Files Bid to Permanently Seal Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04147-JHS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that Exhibits "2" and "3" attached to the Motion for Class Certification be placed under seal. 1. In the present matter the plaintiff, Michael J. Ford, filed a Motion for Class Certification on Jan. 16, 2024. 2. Exhibits "2" and "3" of the Motion for Class Certification contained confidential information and documentation. 3. The confidential documentation contained in Exhibits "2" and "3" were to be filed under seal. 4. Due to an administrative error, Exhibits "2" and "3" were not filed under seal. Progressive offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4i6o2Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C. 1801 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 350-6600 Facsimile: (215) 665-8197 - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com - and - Scott Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT KRAMER P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 232-6300 - and - Jack Goodrich, Esq. JACK GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 261-4663 PTB SALES: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL GARCIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PTB SALES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01478 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. This is a wage and hour class action lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff and other current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in California for Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked; failure to pay overtime at the proper overtime rate by failing to include all remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and compliant rest periods and/or pay rest period premium wages; failure to pay accrued and vested vacation/PTO wages; failure to pay sick pay at the proper regular rate; and failure to indemnify all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties. The Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties for Defendants' failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; and for unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly non-exempt employee from May 19, 2021 to June 28, 2023. PTB Sales, Inc. provides refurbished vacuum pumps and vacuum pump repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. Arie Ebrahimian, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (213) 213-0000 Facsimile: (213) 213-0025 E-mail: dlavi@ebralavi.com arie@ebralavi.com PURECYCLE TECH: Theodore Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM C. THEODORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHAEL OTWORTH, MICHAEL E. DEE, DAVID BRENNER, and BYRON ROTH, Case No. 6:21-cv-00809-PGB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying action pursuant to Rule 23 as a class action and certifying the defined Class: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired PureCycle Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle") securities between Nov. 16, 2020 and November 10, 2021, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Excluded are: (a) Defendants; (b) any current or former officers or directors of PureCycle; (c) the immediate family members of any Defendant or any current or former officer or director of PureCycle; and (d) any entity that any Defendant owns or controls, or owned or controlled during the Class Period." (2) appointing the Plaintiffs Robert Ciecko and Mariusz Ciecko as the Class Representatives; (3) appointing Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel; and (4) granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. PureCycle went public via a "de-SPAC" reverse merger with Roth CH Acquisition I Co., a SPAC. PureCycle, which has never earned any revenue and has no other products, claims that its polypropylene recycling process economically removes color, odor, and contaminants from polypropylene waste feedstock, a common plastic used in consumer products like food packaging, and turnsit into near-virgin plastic -- a feat that has stymied scientists since 1951 and proven impossible. On May 6, 2021, analyst Hindenburg Research published a scathing report on PureCycle entitled "PureCycle: The Latest Zero-Revenue ESG SPAC Charade, Sponsored by the Worst of Wall Street." The Report concluded that, "PureCycle represents the worst qualities of the SPAC boom; another quintessential example of how executives and SPAC sponsors enrich themselves while hoisting unproven technology and ridiculous financial projections onto the public markets, leaving retail investors to face the ultimate consequences." PureCycle provides recycling services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J0FzOR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 581-9973 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: taweinrib@pomlaw.com RED DOG: Faces Class Action Over Withheld Wages ----------------------------------------------- Jef Harmatz, writing for Z107.7, reports that a restaurant group that owns two restaurants in the hi-desert is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging service charges added automatically to customer bills may have been withheld from servers. The Los Angeles-based restaurant group Last Word Hospitality, serves as the parent company for a number of LA area restaurants, including Red Dog Saloon in Pioneertown and The Copper Room in Yucca Valley. LA Eater reports that a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by a former server employed by the restaurant group alleges that the service fees added to customer bills should have been considered as gratuities and tips. The lawsuit alleges that the fees should have been distributed only among servers, rather than to all employees and managers at the restaurant. The lawsuit also questions whether the fees were properly distributed. When asked by Z107.7 for comment, Adam Weisblatt, co-founder of Last Word Hospitality provided a statement saying, "Deciding to enact a service charge was an ethical decision of how to run a restaurant that equitably pays staff. We want to create meaningful careers and see this as an important aspect of being good employers. Dishwashers are as important to us as managers. We will address the lawsuit with the same good intentions we hold ourselves to in all forms of business. We have not not yet seen the complaint, and will comment more in due time." In July, one of the partners of Copper Room and Red Dog Saloon, Eric Michel Alperin, spoke with Z10.7.7's Hilary Sloane about the 20% service fee charged at the restaurants. He said then that 12.5% of the service charge at Red Dog goes directly to staff and is calculated by hours worked. Management labor costs and healthcare premiums get 3.5% of the service charge, and that Red Dog also offers a 401K contribution plan. According to California law, tips cannot be used to compensate managers, supervisors, or owners. Z107.7 spoke with a former employee of one of the restaurant group's hi-desert restaurants, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The former employee said that the lack of transparency surrounding the service fee, specifically how it was collected and then distributed, was a major factor in their decision to leave the restaurant. "It never made sense to me, and a lot of people who work there feel that way." "They told us what to say to people when we explained the service charge to customers, but it made me feel like I was lying to people. If you're leaving a fat tip for your server, you think it's going to your server. I wasn't happy with what they were doing." [GN] ROSEBUD LENDING: Faces Class Action Over Predatory Loans -------------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that Rosebud Lending, along with other affiliated lenders, has been accused of violating federal racketeering laws by issuing loans with exorbitantly high interest rates, often exceeding 500%. The class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Joseph Morgan and David Johnson, each a resident of Cook County, on behalf of themselves and other class members in Chicago federal court on Feb. 5. The defendants in the case include Rosebud Lending LZO, which is also known as ZocaLoans; 777 Partners LLC; Tactical Marketing Partners LLC; F3EA Capital LLC; F3EA Servicing LLC; F3EA Holdings LLC; and John Does 1-10. The plaintiffs argue that these loans are predatory and unlawful and seek a declaratory judgment to void them. They also request an injunction against their collection. The lawsuit seeks damages under the Illinois Interest Act, the Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Additionally, it seeks treble damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The court filing indicates that this lawsuit involves more than 100 class members and that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Daniel A. Edelman, Tara L. Goodwin and Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, of the firm of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin, of Chicago. [GN] SIX FLAGS: Appeals Remand Order in Mack Suit to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- SIX FLAGS GREAT ADVENTURE LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit entitled Danielle Mack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Six Flags Great Adventure LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3-23-cv-03813, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for unpaid wages in violation the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). On Aug. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County. On Aug. 7, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On Jan. 5, 2024, Judge Michael A. Shipp granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the Plaintiff's NJWHL claim requires interpretation of any of the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) provisions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims are not preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). It follows that there is no federal question raised in the Plaintiff's complaint and, as a result, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. For this reason, the Plaintiff's motion to remand was granted. The appellate case is captioned Danielle Mack v. Six Flags Great Adventure LLC, et al., Case No. 24-1184, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 1, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DANIELLE MACK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO 715 Twinning Road Suite 211, Twinning Office Center Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 - and - Charles J. Kocher, Esq. MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER 50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 985-9800 Defendants-Appellants SIX FLAGS GREAT ADVENTURE LLC, et al. are represented by: Garrett D. Kennedy, Esq. DLA PIPER 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4708 TAMARA LICH: Class Action v. Freedom Convoy Organizers Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- David Fraser, writing for CBC News, reports that a $300-million class-action lawsuit filed against Freedom Convoy protesters, donors and organizers on behalf of downtown Ottawa residents and businesses is moving forward after a judge ruled against a motion filed by the defendants. Superior Court Justice Calum MacLeod heard arguments in December for and against a motion brought under anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) legislation. The legislation serves to protect people from vexatious lawsuits filed to silence opponents through legal and financial intimidation. Convoy organizers filed the motion in an attempt to have the lawsuit tossed, arguing it amounted to an attack on freedoms of expression. Lawyers representing the defendants, who include Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, argued political expression is fundamental to society. But in his decision released on Feb. 6, MacLeod sided with residents and businesses by dismissing the motion. He wrote that the case pitted the rights of individuals to use their property and public streets against the rights of protestors to make their grievances heard by using pressure tactics against the government. Plaintiffs' case 'meritorious,' judge finds The defendants argued that because their use of free expression was in the public interest, the plaintiffs did not meet the threshold required to launch a lawsuit. MacLeod disagreed, writing in his decision that the plaintiffs have a "meritorious case." "There is evidence that certain plaintiffs were subjected to what they contend to have been extreme amounts of noise, horn honking, incessant diesel fumes and other pollution, blockage of the streets and intimidation. There is evidence that plaintiffs had difficulty accessing their properties and that business was disrupted, reservations cancelled, and revenue negatively impacted," the decision reads. While recognizing the defendants deny having had a common intention to block streets or pressure government by creating hardship on residents, MacLeod wrote it could still be concluded that disrupting daily life in the city is what organizers and participants were after. "It cannot be said on the limited evidentiary record available on this motion that any of the potential defences are likely to prevail," the decision says. Paul Champ, the lawyer who is bringing forward the class action, said in a statement he was "pleased" with the outcome. "Another attempt by the defendants to derail this litigation has proven unsuccessful," his statement read. "We remain committed to obtaining justice and redress for the people of downtown Ottawa." Lawyers representing the defendants say they are reviewing the decision and did not have any immediate comment. [GN] TATLER ASIA: Lion Messi Fans Hoping to Launch Breach Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Standard reports that fans are hoping they can launch a "class action" against Tatler as it remained mum about any refunds for the Lionel Messi exhibition match. A man surnamed Kwok said he was deceived. "Fans loudly chanted words like refunds or scam," Kwok said. "Many other fans were saying a class action lawsuit should be filed." In August 2021 a cross-sector working group established by the Department of Justice began a consultancy study on the potential and possible impacts of introducing a class action system, but has yet to announce any progress. The Consumer Council has so far received 477 complaints regarding the match, including 74 from tourists, involving over HK$3.1 million. Police said six cases of fraud have been received and referred to the Customs and Excise Department for follow-up. Customs has received 138 reports of fraud and has arranged a dedicated team to follow up on the incident. Consumer Council chief executive Gilly Wong Fung-han said it is challenging to label the incident as a violation of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance as it may involve "misleading omissions" and failure to inform consumers of relevant information. The total amount incurred exceeded HK$2.5 million. The council said it would discuss a solution with Tatler after all evidence provided by consumers is consolidated. Hong Kong Football Association president Pui Kwan-kay said, depending on the terms between the two parties, if one party breached the contract, money and performance fees would be deducted as compensation if individual stars were unable to play. Sports sector lawmaker Kenneth Fok Kai-kong said Inter Miami owes Hong Kong football fans an explanation and apology. In a 3,000-Chinese character article on Facebook Feb. 6, Fok said Messi's performance over the years is worthy of respect but fans felt disrespected on Feb. 4. Inter Miami is rumored to have been asking for US$10 million (HK$78 million) for an exhibition match in the past five to six years, Fok said, and it is not worth the price if Messi doesn't play. [GN] TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over User Data Sharing --------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a class action alleges Teladoc has secretly shared website visitors' private information with third parties, including Facebook, without consent. FILED: JANUARY 30, 2024 Case No. 7:24-CV-00664 Taylor et al. v. Teladoc Health, Inc. LAW(S) Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 New York General Business Law A proposed class action alleges Teladoc Health has secretly shared website visitors' private information with third parties, including Facebook, without consent. The 46-page lawsuit claims that when a user visits the virtual healthcare company's website, TeladocHealth.com, invisible web-tracking technology automatically intercepts and discloses their personal data and online communications to unauthorized third parties, which, in turn, use the information for targeted marketing purposes. The suit contends that Teladoc has intentionally embedded into its website Facebook's Meta pixel and Conversions application programming interface (API), which are tracking tools designed to capture and transmit back to the social media company a visitor's every interaction with the website in real time. The case charges that this is the equivalent of "bugging" or "wiretapping" a phone line, as Teladoc allows unrelated third parties to effectively "listen in" on communications that users meant only for the telehealth company. The complaint alleges that along with a visitor's private communications and movements on the website, Teladoc also discloses to third parties a user's personal data, such as their IP address and Facebook ID, a unique identifier associated with an individual's Facebook account. By sharing this combination of information, the healthcare company thereby makes it possible for third parties to link specific consumers to their behavior and preferences on TeladocHealth.com, the filing stresses. Per the case, Teladoc did not disclose its use of tracking tools to consumers, nor did it acquire consent from users to share their personal information with third parties. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, provided their personally identifiable information and/or medical data to Teladoc using TeladocHealth.com. [GN] TEXAS: Diogu Sues Over Content-Based Restriction of Free Speech --------------------------------------------------------------- DIOGU KALU DIOGU II, as similarly situated Plaintiffs v. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE; THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; SEANA WILLING, in her Official Capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, and in her individual capacity; AMANDA M. KATES, in her Official Capacity as Assistant Disciplinary Counsel for the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and in her individual capacity; JOHN S. BRANNON, in his official capacity as Assistant Disciplinary Counsel for the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and in his individual capacity; TIMOTHY J. BALDWIN, in his official capacity as Administrative Attorney for the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and in his individual capacity; DANIEL MARTINEZ, in his official capacity as Assistant Disciplinary Counsel for the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and in his individual capacity; DANIELA GROSZ, in her official capacity as Assistant Disciplinary Counsel for the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and in her individual capacity; Laura Gibson, Cindy V. Tisdale, Sylvia Borunda Firth, Benny Agosto, Jr., David N. Calvillo, Elizabeth Sandoval Cantu, Luis Cavazos, Craig Cherry, Jason Charbonnet, Kelly-Ann F. Clarke, Jeff Cochran, David C. Courreges, Thomas A. Crosley, Steve Fischer, Lucy Forbes, Gregory M. Fuller, August W. Harris III, Matthew J. Hill, Forrest L. Huddleston, Lori M. Kern, Modinat Kotun, Bill Kroger, Dwight McDonald, Carra Miller, Lawrence Morales II, Lydia Elizondo Mount, Kimberly M. Naylor, Jeanine Novosad Rispoli, Michael J. Ritter, Audie Sciumbato, Mary L. Scott, John Sloan, D. Todd Smith, G. David Smith, Paul K. Stafford, Alex J. Stelly Jr., Nitin Sud, Radha Thiagarajan, Robert L. Tobey, Aaron Z. Tobin, Andrew Tolchin, G. Michael Vasquez, Kimberly Pack Wilson, and Kennon L. Wooten in their official capacities as Members of the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, (Collectively, "Texas State Bar Defendants"); BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas; HON. NORMA GONZALES, 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas; Pete Drew Kennedy, Tricia Krenek, and Edward Krenek, Case No. 1:24-cv-00075 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2024) is a class action seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy unconstitutional content-based restriction of free speech by the named Defendants. Plaintiff Diogu is the owner and founder of Diogu Law Firm PLLC. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline is a standing committee of the State Bar of Texas. According to the complaint, to practice law or provide legal services in Texas, the State requires attorneys to join, associate with, and pay dues to the State Bar of Texas, and abide by content-based restrictions of free speech through the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the TDRPC as applied in this case is unconstitutional as a matter of law because State Bars can only regulate the Speech of a lawyer who is representing a client in a pending case before a tribunal. That is because the "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" standard is a constitutionally permissible balance between the First Amendment rights of attorneys in pending cases and the State's interest in fair trials. This scheme violates the First Amendment for several different reasons including that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," says the suit. Accordingly, State Bar defendants violated Plaintiff Diogu's speech and association rights because his speech is non-germane to the regulation of lawyers or the improvement of legal services and because the violation involved closed cases, the state's narrow interest for fair trial of its citizens has become moot, the suit asserts.[BN] The Plaintiff, of Brookshire, Texas, appears pro se. ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Seeks Extension of Class Action Opt-Out Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Zane Simon, writing for Bloody Elbow, reports that the UFC has found plenty of defenders over the years within the ranks of fighters who once fought for the promotion. Some, like Forrest Griffin get actual day-to-day jobs working for the promotion in one of their many business interests. Others, like Daniel Cormier and Michael Bisping, are part of a long string of athletes brought in to provide color commentary in the broadcast booth. Even when it comes to things like fighter pay, there are no shortage of fighters happy to say that the UFC gave them all the money they earned and more. "To be honest, it makes me mad, because people don't understand," Michael Bisping told MMA Fighting way back in 2012. "I've worked hard, and I get [the amount stipulated in the contract], but when Dana comes into the locker room and gives me a check afterwards, they don't have to do that. Far from it. I was already very happy with the money I was getting, but then they'll hand you another check on top of that and say, ‘Well done…good job,' and there'll be another huge check inside the envelope." No fighters ask to exit UFC class action lawsuit Given the amount of support the UFC has as a leader in the industry, then, it may be somewhat surprising to learn that they're not getting a lot of backup when it comes to the still looming UFC class action lawsuit. First filed in 2014, but only just recently granted class certification, the lawsuit covers somewhere around 1,200 athletes that competed inside the Octagon between December 2010 and June 2017. In it, the UFC has been accused of a variety of anti-competitive practices aimed to keep fighter salaries low and rival promotions from gaining a foothold in the industry. If successful, the lawsuit could provide not just damages to those fighters who meet the class requirements, but could even potentially shake up the UFC's current fighter contract structure. Despite the vocal support the UFC may get in interviews and social media, it seems nobody is willing to take the opportunity to really show their solidarity and pass up the opportunity for an extra check. Combat Sports Law reports that lawyers working on behalf of the fighters produced the following filing, formally announcing that no eligible athletes chose to opt out of the lawsuit. Put more simply, on November 17th, Angeion Group was tasked with notifying those athletes that meet the criteria of the UFC antitrust lawsuit, and with giving them the option to opt out should a decision be made in the plaintiff's favor. According to Combat Sports Law's reporting, the notifications included a letter sent to the athletes, an email notice, a media campaign, posted notices at 48 gyms, and a website and hotline dedicated to the lawsuit. Despite no apparent interest from fighters in removing themselves from the proceedings, the UFC has apparently asked that the opt-out window be extended in response to the plaintiff filing above. Chael Sonnen rips monopsony complaints, doesn't opt out Perhaps few fighters have been so willing to attack some of the arguments at play in the UFC class action lawsuit as former title contender Chael Sonnen. A talent with the UFC from 2009 to 2013, the 46-year-old is right square in the middle of the Bout Class classification. Recently, however, he's made a point of public criticism of the idea that fighters are entitled to a bigger share of UFC revenue. "Can you name 1 company on Earth that gives 50/50 revenue split?" Sonnen replied to a post from Combat Sports Law's Erik Magraken, who noted that the antitrust lawsuit probably wouldn't exist at all if the promotion weren't withholding such a large share of their profit from their fighters. "Price is set by the market," Sonnen said, continuing the argument in a November 17th video posted to his YouTube -- in which he responded to Magraken and the UFC antitrust case at length. "Nothing else sets price. Nothing. Not revenues, not debts, not assets, not longevity, not even talents. Those would all seemingly be good things to go in, when you're negotiating, and trying to get market value, but they don't directly set the value, the market does." "[Magraken] is coming in and saying the UFC is not paying enough, therefore it's a monopoly and it's unfair and there's nothing fighters can do -- when he's confronted with the idea that they are paying market value. Chatri would not tell you any different, Scott Coker would not tell you any different, Donn Davis at the PFL, they won't tell you any different. The UFC is paying market value. And they come to us and we can give the same thing, and we can trade them around. As long as the contract is up and we can all do our best to find the matchups that we think are the most compelling, that we can work with. That's the business, very straight forward." Maybe if the UFC is granted the opt-out continuation that they seek, fighters like Sonnen will be lining up to jump ship and make it clear that they believe the UFC doesn't owe them a dime. If that doesn't happen, however, then it feels like the chance was given for fighters to stand up and say they don't support this class action lawsuit, and everyone decided to stick with it and see where it goes. [GN] WALMART INC: Faces FCRA Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that in recent months, we have seen a large uptick in FCRA class actions. If you're a regular reader here at FCRALand, you may recall the Stanford class action filed in October 2018, the PetCo class settlement in November 2018, and the Delta Airlines proposed settlement earlier this month. We can now add another to the list and this one is, by far, the largest FCRA class action we've seen in recent memory. This month, Walmart suffered a big defeat when a federal district court in California granted certification to a class that may have as many as five million class members. The Plaintiffs filed a class action, claiming that Walmart's background checks failed to satisfy the notice requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and state law. The Plaintiffs claim that, when they applied for jobs at Walmart, Walmart performed a background check without proper and legal authorization, and without providing the requisite disclosures. Specifically, Walmart allegedly included extraneous information on disclosure forms and procured consumer reports without informing applicants of their rights. The now-certified class is defined to include "current, former and prospective applicants for employment in the United States" who applied for a job where the background report was conducted in the five years before the suit was filed. [GN] WARNER BROS: Averts Class Action Over Post-Merger Stock Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. and its top executives won't face allegations that they failed to provide investors details about subscriber numbers, content licensing, and streaming strategy until after the company's $43 billion merger in 2022. Investors alleged that the entertainment giant's misrepresentations prompted stock drops, but couldn't show that the statements highlighted in offering documents were false or misleading, Judge Valerie E. Caproni said in an opinion filed on Feb. 5 in US District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing the case. Plaintiffs alleged that the offering documents were misleading.[GN] WARNER BROS: Weil Wins Complete Securities Class Action Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Weil on Feb. 6 disclosed that in May 2021, WarnerMedia and Discovery, Inc. announced their industry-defining $43 billion merger, forming one of the largest global media companies and the new home of a deep library of content and brands, ranging from HBO and DC Comics to CNN and the Food Network. After the deal closed, the stock price of the new company dropped, which caught the attention of the shareholder plaintiff bar, and resulted in a massive putative securities class action in the S.D.N.Y. against Warner Bros. Discovery and certain of its executives. The Warner Bros. Discovery parties retained Weil to lead its defense. On February 5, 2024, Weil secured a complete victory on a motion to dismiss in this case. Judge Caproni's 29-page opinion granted our clients' motion in its entirety, including on strict liability claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the legacy WarnerMedia's operations in SEC filings and other public disclosures in connection with the merger, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. In our motion to dismiss briefs, Weil argued plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because none of the challenged statements was false or misleading. In its ruling granting our motion to dismiss, the Court agreed that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged even a single false or misleading statement, because all of the challenged statements were objectively true and the additional context plaintiffs claim defendants omitted did not render those statements misleading. The Weil team was led by Jonathan Polkes, Co-Chair of Weil's global Litigation Department, and Caroline Zalka, Co-Head of Weil's Securities Litigation practice. The team included counsel Amanda Pooler, Nicole Prunetti, and Josh Wesneski, and associates Milana Bretgoltz, Brigit Crosbie, Nolan DeBrowner, Daniel Lifton, and Honghu Wang. [GN] WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dishwashers ------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Hive reports that Canadians who own a Whirlpool dishwasher could cash in on a class-action lawsuit against the brand. According to Charney Lawyers, a proposed national class action has been commenced against Whirlpool and Home Depot for allegedly defective KitchenAid and Whirlpool dishwasher models from the years 2013 to 2023 and ongoing. "If you live in Canada and purchased one of these dishwashers from Home Depot or another retailer, you may be eligible for this class action," stated Charney Lawyers. The claim alleges the dishwashers are defective because of a part that can prematurely fail, causing water leaks whenever the dishwasher is used. The damages may include costs to repair water-damaged property, pay for service calls, and replace the defective part. According to the class action, the costs to repair the KitchenAid Whirlpool dishwasher can exceed its market value, making owners replace the appliance long before its normal operating life expectancy. Here are the affected models: Whirlpool: BLB14DR, IUD750, IUD850, WDF5, WDF7, WDL785, WDT7, WDT9, WDTA5, WDTA7 KitchenAid: KDFE1, KDFE3, KDFE4, KDTE1, KDTE2, KDTE3, KDTE4, KDTE5, KDTE7, KDTM3, KUDE2, KUDE4, KUDE5, KUDE7, KUDL, KDPE2 JennAir: JDB8, JDB9, JDTSS2 Kenmore: 662.13, 665.13, 665.14, 665.15 Maytag: JDB8 If you've experienced a leaky dishwasher, you can register with Charney Lawyers here or email them at kgalts@charneylawyers.com. There are no specifics yet as to how much Canadians could get if there is a settlement, so make sure to keep an eye out for updates. If you're not eligible for this, there are plenty of other class-action settlements you could cash in on this year here. [GN] [*] Data Breach Class Actions on the Rise, Report Shows ------------------------------------------------------- Lyle Moran, writing for Legal Dive, reports that the scale of data breach class actions "exploded" in 2023, as companies faced copycat and follow-on lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions, according to a Duane Morris report. The combined value of the top 10 settlements across all areas of class-action litigation hit near-record highs. Class actions and government enforcement lawsuits generated more than $50 billion in settlements in 2023, the report said. Additionally, the emergence of generative AI has the potential to spur the plaintiffs' class action bar to do "more with less" when it comes to filing suits, a press release about Duane Morris' Class Action Review 2024 said. Dive Insight: In the last two years, class actions and government enforcement lawsuits have generated roughly $113 billion in settlements, the Duane Morris report found. Many of the settlements took place outside of the products and pharmaceutical industries, which indicates there is a wider base of threats to businesses. "Looking at the class action settlement numbers from the past year, it's clear that last year's unprecedented level of settlements was not a one-off phenomenon," said Duane Morris partner Gerald Maatman, Jr., co-author of the review and chair of the firm's workplace class action division. "We have entered a period of increased threats and heightened stakes in the valuation of class actions. The massive numbers will only work to further motivate the plaintiff's bar in 2024 to increase filings and assert even more aggressive settlement positions." Companies faced significant costs responding to data breach class actions last year. These cases also presented difficulties for the courts around issues of standing and uninjured class members, the report said. Plaintiffs in data breach class actions faced challenges in demonstrating injuries from the alleged data breaches and securing class certification. "Indeed, less than 25% of the class certification decisions issued in data breach cases in 2023 came out in favor of plaintiffs," the report said. The report also notes that generative AI has swiftly become a very hot topic for corporate counsel amid a push by companies to use tools powered by the emerging technology. GenAI could streamline many litigation tasks such as the discovery process and aid in class member communications, according to the report. "In 2023, we saw the tip of the iceberg relative to the ways that generative AI is poised to transform class action litigation," the report said. [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 ***