/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 ***