/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 16, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 35 Headlines 1832 ASSET: Ontario Court Certifies Investors' Class Action AEROVANTI INC: Roser Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Insurance Premium Class Action for $25M AMC NETWORKS: Settles Class Action Over Use of Personal Info APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Class Action Suit ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set March 25 ASRC FEDERAL: Beat Class Action Over Breach of Medicare Data BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Pangiam Merger BLUETRITON BRANDS: Bottled Water Contains Microplastics, Bruno Says CALGARY STAMPEDE: Settles Class Action for $9.5 Million CANADA: Covid Negligence Class Action v. Minister Can Proceed CANADA: Faces Class Action Over $5 Annuity Payments CANADA: March 7 First Nations Water Claims Filing Deadline Set CASSAVA SCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 2 COLORADO: Suit to Be Filed on Behalf of Transgender Women CONTINENTAL AG: Faces Suit Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme DANONE WATERS: Morgan Lewis Attorneys Discuss Class Action DOORDASH INC: Judge Grants Motion to Extend Discovery Period DUNKIN' DONUTS: Discriminates People With Lactose Allergies EPIC GAMES: Feb. 29 Fortnite Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set GENERAL MOTORS: No Settlement in Cruze Class Action Suit GREAT DANE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Negron Claims HUMANA INC: Faces Class Action Over Use of AI Model INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL: Faces Class Action in Australia Over CFDs INTUIT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $141 Million IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 8 JOHNSON CITY, TN: Sean Williams Sexual Assault Class Action OK'd KIND LLC: Exponent's Ben Lester Discusses Class Cert. Dismissal LITHIUM MINING: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action LOANDEPOT INC: Rosa Sues Over Unauthorized Access to Personal Info LOTTERY.COM INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action MAGNIS ENERGY: Gordon Legal May Fund Class Action MANITOBA: Faces Class Action Over Abuse Claims at Marymound MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Nutter Attorneys Discuss Breach Class Action MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 18 MONTE A.M. INC: Espinoza Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices MOUNT SAINT MARY: Appeal Filed in Figueroa Case NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Sued Over Voyager Digital Promotional Deal NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 8 PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Data Privacy Concerns PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Malone Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Grady Seeks to Vacate Class Cert Proceedings PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Ford Allowed to Seal Exhibits PROSMILE HOLDINGS: Middleton Files Suit in D. New Jersey PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in Angulo PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid in Theodore Suit Mooted QUOTELAB LLC: Weingrad Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls R&L CARRIERS: Rubalcaba Suit Removed to N.D. California R.C. BIGELOW: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Class Notice Plan REDWIRE CORPORATION: Parties Seek Class Cert Oral Argument REDWIRE CORPORATION: Thompson Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class RENTGROW INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid RESURGENT CAPITAL: Class Settlement in Haston Gets Initial OK RIPPLE LABS: Class Notice Granted in Part in Sostack Suit RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Must Oppose Crews Class Cert Bid by Feb. 29 RJ WALKER: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought SAN DIEGO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Collection System SANSUM CLINIC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rose Extended to Feb. 28 SANTANDER CONSUMER: Brief in Opposition to Class Cert Due Feb. 19 SANTANDER CONSUMER: Hanson Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action SARAYA USA: Bid to Stay Discovery in Cohen Class Suit OK'd SCOUT ENERGY: CCF Seeks to Modify Amended Scheduling Order SECRETLAB US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nugent Extended to April 25 SELECT REHAB: Bid to Amend Complaint Stricken SHAMROCK TOWING: Anderson Seeks to Notify Truck Drivers Collective SMG FOOD: Class Certification Bid in Ordono Suit Due July 11 STATE BAR OF GEORGIA: Mignott Appeals Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir. STATE FARM: Nichols Must Oppose to Daubert Motion by March 29 STRATEGIC PROPERTIES: Puga Suit Remanded to Jackson Cir., Missouri TEAM HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Buncombe Suit Tossed TOYOTA OF DALLAS: April 26 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Sought TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Bid for Class Certification Due August 9 TRUMP CORPORATION: McKoy Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. TRUMP CORPORATION: Patel Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial UNITED CONCORDIA: Lyngass Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Mitchell Due July 19 UNITED PARCEL: Malone Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees UNITED SERVICES: Leavitt Class Action Tossed UNITED STATES: Volkova Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification UNIVERSAL RECOVERY: March 21 Status Conference Date Unchanged UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Chappell Files Suit in N.D. Ohio US FERTILITY: Proposes $5.75-Mil. Settlement in Breach Class Suit VAXART INC: Parties Seek to Depose Class Certification Opposition VAXART INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by March 7 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Settlement in Dack Suit Gets Initial Nod VOLTA INC: Chau Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes of Employees WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Allowed Leave to File Docs in Class Sui WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dishwashers WK KELLOGG COMPANY: Maldonado Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages XPONENTIAL FITNESS: ids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 9 ZUFFA LLC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Le [*] Baker Sterchi Cowden Attorney Discusses GIPA Litigation [*] U.S. Manufacturers Seek Dismissal of Hair Relaxer MDL Suit [*] U.S. Tyre Manufacturers Face Suit Over Antitrust Violations [] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Reports $412MM Litigation Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has $788MM Asbestos-Related Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $417MM Asbestos Liabilities ********* 1832 ASSET: Ontario Court Certifies Investors' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario has certified a class action which permits a defined group of investors (the "Class") to pursue claims against 1832 Asset Management L.P. ("Defendant"). It is alleged that the Defendant paid excessive, inflated, and/or unearned trailing commissions to Discount Brokers out of the assets of the Scotia and Dynamic mutual fund trusts. The class action claims monetary damages on behalf of the Class. The allegations made in the class action have not been proven and are contested by the Defendant. If you do not wish to participate in the class action, be bound by or receive any benefits from it, you must opt out by sending the opt-out form to RicePoint Administration Inc. by May 7, 2024. To obtain a copy of the opt-out form or for other important information regarding the class action: Visit https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/mutual-fund-trailing-commissions/ Call toll-free 1 800 461 6166 ext 1615 (North America) Call 226-636-1615 (Outside North America) The publication of this notice was authorized by the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Ontario. [GN] AEROVANTI INC: Roser Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- TYSON ROSER, RICK HENDRICK, and JOSHUA KRAUS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action, Plaintiff v. AEROVANTI, INC., a Delaware Corporation, AEROVANTI AVIATION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00211 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 23, 2024) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the proposed Class to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, and unpaid overtime wages owed by the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Common law. The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed FLSA Collective are individuals who were, or are, employed by Defendants as pilots. They fly private and chartered aircrafts to and from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport, among other airports throughout the U.S. AeroVanti, Inc. offers private aviation services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq. BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A. 2023 Constitution Boulevard Sarasota, FL 34231 Telephone: (941) 923-7700 Facsimile: (941) 923-7736 E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Insurance Premium Class Action for $25M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Allstate agreed to a $25 million settlement to resolve claims that it determined policyholder premiums based on unapproved rating factors. The settlement benefits current and former California primary policyholders of certain Allstate policies whose premiums were calculated between July 1, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2022, based on a rating factor Allstate selected. Primary policyholders include those whose premiums were determined based on licensure for 29 or more years and had comprehensive coverage; those whose premiums were determined based on licensure of 34 or more years and had collision coverage; and those who, in addition to their auto policy, had a condo, life and/or mobile home policy and did not have a renter's policy. The policies held by such multipolicy primary policyholders "in addition to their auto policy are the following: Condo; Mobilehome; Life; Owner + Life; Condo + Life; Mobilehome + Life; Condo + PUP; Mobilehome + PUP; Life + PUP; Owner, Life + PUP; Condo, Life + PUP; Mobilehome, Life + PUP," according to the settlement website. According to the class action lawsuit, Allstate unlawfully determined policyholder premiums with rating factors based on market factors. Plaintiffs claim that these factors resulted in higher premiums than if Allstate used rating factors approved by the insurance commissioner to have a substantial relationship to the risk for losses. Allstate is a nationwide insurance company that offers auto, home, renter's, condo, motorcycle and other policies. Allstate hasn't admitted wrongdoing but agreed to a $25 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Each class member is estimated to receive $12.40, though actual payments may be higher or lower depending on participation rates. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 9, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May 22, 2024. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a payment by check for former policyholders or a policy credit for current policyholders. Who's Eligible Current and former California primary policyholders of certain Allstate policies whose premiums were calculated between July 1, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2022, based on a rating factor Allstate selected. Policyholders include: those whose premiums were determined based on licensure for 29 or more years and had comprehensive coverage; those whose premiums were determined based on licensure of 34 or more years and had collision coverage; and those who, in addition to their auto policy, had a condo, life and/or mobile home policy and did not have a renter's policy. The policies held by such multipolicy primary policyholders "in addition to their auto policy are the following: Condo; Mobilehome; Life; Owner + Life; Condo + Life; Mobilehome + Life; Condo + PUP; Mobilehome + PUP; Life + PUP; Owner, Life + PUP; Condo, Life + PUP; Mobilehome, Life + PUP," according to the settlement website. Potential Award $12.40 (estimated) Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form N/A NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Exclusion Deadline 04/09/2024 Case Name Stevenson v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-04788-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 05/22/2024 Settlement Website AllstateCaliforniaAutoRatingSettlement.com Claims Administrator Stevenson v. Allstate c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 info@AllstateCaliforniaAutoRatingSettlement.com 833-383-4978 Class Counsel Cyrus Mehri Jay Angoff MEHRI & SKALET PLLC Jeff Osterwise BERGER MONTAGUE PC Andrea Gold TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP Defense Counsel Michael P O'Day DLA PIPER LLP (U.S.) [GN] AMC NETWORKS: Settles Class Action Over Use of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ Megan Peters, writing for Comicbook, reports that anime fans, listen up. It seems another class action lawsuit has popped up within the fandom. Following a settlement involving Crunchyroll, the streaming service HIDIVE is in hot water. AMC Networks, the parent company behind HIDIVE, has settled a class action lawsuit regarding personal info which users may be entitled to. As you can see here, AMC Networks was approached with a class action lawsuit regarding the use of personal information of its users. The company denies it did anything illegal but chose to settle this lawsuit to avoid further litigation costs. HIDIVE users between January 18, 2021 through January 10, 2024 may be entitled to payment due to this settlement, and the same goes for users of AMC Network's other streaming services. "This notice is to inform you that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit claiming that Defendant, AMC Networks, Inc. ("AMC"), disclosed the personally identifiable information of registered users of AMC Services (1) AMC+, (2) Shudder, (3) Acorn TV, (4)) ALLBLK, (5) SundanceNow, and (6) HIDIVE to Third-Party Tracking Companies, without their consent, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, AMC Networks Settlement shared in a new statement. "Personally identifiable information includes information which identities a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider. AMC denies that it violated any law. The court has not determined who is right, but the parties have agreed to the settlement to avoid the uncertainties and expenses associated with containing the case." Users impacted by the class action suit will have received a personalized notice about the case, but users can also request a notice ID if they weren't informed. Claims must be submitted no later than April 9, 2024 to be processed. [GN] APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Wesley Hilliard, writing for ai, reports that a class-action lawsuit against Apple and Google suggested the company CEOs met in secret to collude on the suppression of the search market, but it has been dismissed by a Judge in California. Lawsuits against Apple and Google are a dime a dozen, but some leave the court as fast as they arrived. Many assume that there is some secret agreement beyond what is known between Apple and Google, and some believed it enough to take it to court. According to a court filing seen by AppleInsider, California Judge Rita Lin has dismissed all claims made by the plaintiffs but has left the opportunity for one claim to be amended for reexamination. The plaintiffs have 30 days to submit their second amended complaint. The first allegation suggested Apple and Google entered into a secret agreement where Apple would not compete in the search business in exchange for profit sharing from Google. This claim was dismissed without leave to amend. The second allegation claims Apple and Google's exclusive default search engine agreement eliminated the opportunity for competition to emerge. The plaintiffs didn't provide enough evidence and were allowed to amend their claim, but it was dismissed until then. The plaintiffs couldn't demonstrate antitrust or injury from the alleged behavior. The judge dismissed these claims without leave to amend them and also dismissed the plaintiff's request for recovery. If the judge doesn't find the resubmitted complaints sufficient, the case will be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs won't be able to pursue these claims again. Meanwhile, the DOJ antitrust probe is still underway with no end in sight. [GN] ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set March 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Archer-Daniels-Midland Company ("ADM" or the "Company") (NYSE: ADM). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether ADM and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until March 25, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired ADM securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On January 21, 2024, ADM announced that on January 19, 2024, the Company's Board had "place[d] Vikram Luthar, the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, on administrative leave, effective immediately." ADM stated that "Mr. Luthar's leave is pending an ongoing investigation being conducted by outside counsel for the Company and the Board's Audit Committee regarding certain accounting practices and procedures with respect to the Company's Nutrition reporting segment, including as related to certain intersegment transactions" and that "[t]he investigation was initiated in response to the Company's receipt of a voluntary document request by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC')." On this news, ADM's stock price fell $16.50 per share, or 24.2%, to close at $51.69 per share on January 22, 2024. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] ASRC FEDERAL: Beat Class Action Over Breach of Medicare Data ------------------------------------------------------------ news.bloomberglaw.com reports that federal contractors ASRC Federal Data Solutions LLC and Health Care Management Solutions LLC defeated a proposed class action alleging they failed to protect the personal health information of 254,000 Medicare beneficiaries that was disclosed in an October 2022 ransomware attack. Plaintiff Barbara Burger didn't show that she had suffered a concrete injury from the disclosure of her data, a requirement for standing to sue in federal court, Judge Richard D. Bennett of the US District Court for the District of Maryland said.[GN] BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Pangiam 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 [GN] BLUETRITON BRANDS: Bottled Water Contains Microplastics, Bruno Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PERRY BRUNO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24STCV01770 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 23, 2024) is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in intentionally labeling its products with false and misleading claims that they are 100% Mountain Spring Water, when Defendant's products contain microplastics. According to the complaint, microplastics are small sized plastic particles that originate from manufacturing and physical degradation of plastics. Microplastics can leach into the water from the bottle, and consumers are exposed to additives, processing aid, and unreacted monomers. As a result of Defendant's fraudulent labeling, Plaintiff and the class have been misled into purchasing products that did not provide them with the benefit of the bargain they paid money for, namely that the Products would be 100% Mountain Spring Water, says the suit. BlueTriton Brands, Inc. is an American beverage company based in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com CALGARY STAMPEDE: Settles Class Action for $9.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that The Calgary Stampede has agreed to pay $9.5 million in damages to complainants in a class-action lawsuit that alleged the organization allowed a performance school staffer to sexually abuse young boys. The agreement is related to the case of Phillip Heerema. Heerema received a 10-year prison sentence in 2018 after pleading guilty to charges including sexual assault, sexual exploitation, child pornography and luring. Heerema admitted he used his position with the Young Canadians School of Performing Arts -- which performs each year in the Calgary Stampede Grandstand Show -- to lure and groom six boys into sexual relationships between 2005 and 2014, as well as in 1992. The school is operated by the Calgary Stampede Foundation. Last fall, the Stampede admitted to negligence and breach of duty and agreed to pay all damages, but the final number was not resolved. Lawyer Cory Ryan, who represents the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede and the Calgary Stampede Foundation, said on Feb. 6 the amount has been tentatively settled. "The representative plaintiff and Stampede defendants have reached a tentative resolution on damages and costs, subject to court approval and the establishment of an approved claims and distribution process," said Ryan in a statement. "The resolution includes a commitment by the Stampede defendants' insurers to pay an all-inclusive amount of $9.5 million to settle the claims of class members." Ryan said the deal also includes a commitment to additional measures and programs. His statement said the resolution was agreed to following extensive settlement discussions, with the help of two Court of King's Bench judges. "If formally implemented, it is the parties' hope that the resolution will provide impacted class members with a measure of closure and aid in the healing process," he said. More complainants could join lawsuit About three dozen plaintiffs initially joined the suit. One of them, who as a victim of sexual assault cannot be identified, told The Canadian Press on Feb. 6 that the settlement is good news but still tentative, and a lot of questions still need answering. He said the amount is based on the original number of complainants and tries to account for people who may not have joined the lawsuit yet. Heerema was recently granted day parole and admitted during his hearing that there were other victims who did not come forward. "Based on Heerema's admission at his parole hearing that he 'knows' there are more victims, I can see the class growing significantly in the coming months," said the plaintiff. He said it's been a long road for everyone in the case. "The Stampede has had every opportunity to make this easier for victims, but they chose to drag this on for as long as they did," he said. "This is positive momentum, but I'm not celebrating yet." This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 6, 2024. [GN] CANADA: Covid Negligence Class Action v. Minister Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Jones, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Ontario's Court of Appeal is allowing a class-action lawsuit to proceed against the minister of long-term care for alleged negligence regarding the government's response to COVID-19. The four lead plaintiffs lost their parents to COVID-19 or related complications in 2020 and allege that while the province knew by the end of January of that year that residents of long-term care homes were particularly vulnerable to the virus, the government didn't enact protections until it was too late. They allege, in claims that have not been proven in court, that thousands of deaths and illnesses could have been prevented if the government had acted sooner. A Superior Court judge certified the class action against the minister of long-term care but didn't allow it to proceed on several other grounds. The government appealed that certification and the plaintiffs also appealed the decision not to certify a class action on the other grounds, including against the minister of health and chief medical officer of health. In a decision released on Feb. 6, the Appeal Court upheld the Superior Court's decision. The mandate of the Ministry of Long-Term Care is arguably distinguishable from that of the Ministry of Health and the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the Appeal Court wrote in its decision. Previous cases have affirmed that their mandates are to act in the general public interest and are not geared to "the protection of the interests of specific individuals," whereas the Long-Term Care Homes Act is aimed at protecting long-term care residents, the court wrote. "To be sure, the appellants' attempt to distinguish the mandate of the MLTC in this manner, and thereby establish a duty of care in favour of the residents of LTC homes, may well not prevail at an adjudication on the merits," the court wrote. "But in my view, it would be inappropriate at this stage to definitively conclude that the appellants' argument is certain to fail." The Ministry of Long-Term Care was only created in 2019 -- it had previously been part of the Ministry of Health -- and there has not yet been "any authoritative judicial pronouncement on whether this recent bifurcation of ministerial responsibilities" and having a separate minister alters an analysis around duty of care, the court wrote. A spokesperson for Long-Term Care Minister Stan Cho, who has held the cabinet post since September, said he could not comment on the case in particular, but said the office spent $85 million on infection prevention and control and followed the advice of the chief medical officer of health. "We will continue to take concrete action to protect the residents of long-term care in Ontario and continue to make the needed investments Ontarians deserve and expect," Daniel Strauss wrote in a statement. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 6, 2024. [GN] CANADA: Faces Class Action Over $5 Annuity Payments --------------------------------------------------- Rachel Ferstl, writing for CBC News, reports that a Manitoba First Nation chief is joining a growing list of Indigenous communities that allege the federal government has violated treaty agreements by not increasing $5 annuity payments to keep up with inflation over the past 150 years. Waywayseecappo First Nation Chief Murray Clearsky is seeking class-action status for his claim against the federal government, filed with Manitoba Court of King's Bench on Jan. 26. He alleges the Crown breached and continues to breach its obligations under Treaty 4 by keeping $5 annuity payments to treaty members the same since the agreement was first signed in 1874, "causing the purchasing power of the annuities to dwindle to the point where it became only a token or symbolic sum," the statement of claim says. In a news release on Feb. 6, Clearsky said the launch of his proposed class action is "vital in addressing the historical wrongs inflicted upon the Treaty 4 First Nations" and ensure that the Crown's promises to treaty members "are not just made, but honoured." Clearsky, who would be the lead plaintiff in the proposed class action, aims to represent 33 First Nations in Treaty 4, which spans about 195,000 square kilometres across present-day southeastern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and west-central Manitoba. The suit names the Attorney General of Canada as the defendant. None of the allegations have been proven in court, and a statement of defence has not been filed. In a statement sent to CBC News on Feb. 7, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said the department is reviewing the statement of claim. "Canada recognizes that more needs to be done to renew the treaty relationship and remains open to looking at ways to advance this important work," said spokesperson Suzanna Su. Last year, three other First Nations in Manitoba -- Lake Manitoba First Nation in Treaty 2, Fisher River First Nation in Treaty 5 and Roseau River Anishinaabe First Nation in Treaty 1 -- each filed similar lawsuits. Other chiefs in Treaty 4 have also filed lawsuits in the Federal Court of Canada. Canada 'continues to break' treaty promises: suit The Crown entered into Treaty 4 with various Saulteaux, Cree and other First Nations in 1874, the lawsuit says. The terms of the treaty included annual payments to all members of the First Nations that signed or adhered to the treaty and their descendants. The payments were intended to compensate the members of the First Nations for the loss of exclusive use of their territory and to ensure the well-being of future generations. The amount was set at $5 per member each year, which in 1874 was an amount that "commanded material purchasing power and was not merely a token or symbolic sum," according to the statement of claim. It says the First Nations were of the understanding that the annuities would reflect the "same degree of purchasing power" as when the treaty was first signed. "The First Nations parties to Treaty 4 did not and could not have known that the real value of a cash payment of $5 in 1874 would be drastically reduced in real terms with the passage of time," the suit says. "The parties to Treaty 4 never intended for the annuities to be frozen in time." The suit alleges that by failing to increase the annuity payments, the federal government has allowed the payments to become "effectively worthless," meaning "Canada has broken, and continues to break, its promise to beneficiaries of Treaty 4." The proposed class action is seeking $100 million in damages, compensation for "unpaid or underpaid" annuities, and changes to the annuity agreements so that the payments are adjusted regularly, along with other relief. [GN] CANADA: March 7 First Nations Water Claims Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Shailynn Foster, writing for Energetic City, reports that there is less than one month remaining for some local First Nations to submit a claim to receive money as part of an $8 billion class-action lawsuit against the federal government over unclean water. Impacted First Nations in Northeast B.C. include Fort Nelson, Halfway River and Saulteau. "As of January 31, 2024, over 140,000 claims have been submitted," says Darian Baskatawang, class counsel for the First Nations Drinking Water Class Action Settlement. "The administrator is continuing to make payments to individuals and process claims." The nationwide settlement covers those impacted by a drinking water advisory for at least one year between November 20th, 1995 and June 20th, 2021, and those eligible may submit a compensation claim. The deadline to submit a claim is March 7th, 2024. Additional compensation for specified injuries sustained by following drinking water advisories is also available. Representatives can claim on behalf of eligible minors, those with mental incapacity and those who passed away on or after November 20th, 2017. The settlement was initially approved by courts on December 22nd, 2021, and includes compensation as well as commitments to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure needed to provide clean drinking water. Resources available: Additional information on the settlement, as well as interactive guides and webinars, can be found at www.firstnationsdrinkingwater.ca. For questions about the process and assistance with the form, the administrator can be contacted toll-free at 1-833-252-4220. For legal questions related to the settlement or assistance with making a claim for specified injuries, class counsel can be contacted at no cost at counsel@firstnationsdrinkingwater.ca or 1-888-265-7589. Emotional support is available through Hope for Wellness toll-free at 1-855-242-3310 or online chat at www.hopeforwellness.ca, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. [GN] CASSAVA SCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cassava Sciences, Inc. ("Cassava" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SAVA) and certain of its officers. Class Definition: This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Cassava securities between August 18, 2022 and October 12, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/SAVA. Case Details: The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to maintain adequate and effective data management controls and procedures related to its drug research programs; (2) as a result, the data published in support of simufilam were susceptible to manipulation to overstate the drug's effectiveness; (3) accordingly, Cassava had misrepresented the efficacy of its research programs and the clinical and/or commercial prospects of simufilam; (4) all of the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject the Company to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/SAVA or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Cassava you have until April 2, 2024, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson 332-239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN] COLORADO: Suit to Be Filed on Behalf of Transgender Women --------------------------------------------------------- Moe Clark, writing for KUNC, reports that Taliyah Murphy received a letter in early 2018 about a soon-to-be-filed class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of transgender women like her who were housed in men's prisons in Colorado. It gave her hope. Murphy and other trans women in Colorado had faced years of sexual harassment and often violence from staff members and fellow incarcerated people. They were denied requests for safer housing options and medical treatment, including surgery, for gender dysphoria, the psychological distress that some trans people experience because of the incongruence between their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity, according to the lawsuit. "We were targets for victimizing, whether it was sexual assault, extortion, you name it," said Murphy, who was released from prison in 2020. Most of the time, she added, "The guards just looked the other way." A historic legal settlement called a consent decree, expected to be finalized by early March, would establish two new voluntary housing units for incarcerated trans women, making Colorado the first state to offer a separate unit, according to attorneys in the case. A federal law states such units are prohibited unless court-ordered. The plan outlined in the agreement, which received preliminary approval last fall, would mandate the Colorado Department of Corrections pay a $2.15 million settlement to affected trans women; update its protocols and staff training; improve medical and mental health care; limit cross-gender searches from correctional officers; and require corrections staff to use correct names and pronouns for trans women inmates. A state judge held a hearing on the consent decree on Jan. 4 and is expected to finalize it by early March, after she granted an extension to allow more incarcerated women to be notified of the settlement. Approximately 400 currently or formerly incarcerated trans women are eligible to be beneficiaries. Housing assignments in U.S. prisons are nearly exclusively based on a person's anatomy, despite a federal law outlining that the safety concerns of trans people should be taken into consideration when determining placement. That's because they are significantly more likely than inmates who are not trans to be sexually or physically assaulted while incarcerated. "It's like putting targets on their back," said Paula Greisen, the civil rights lawyer who filed the class-action lawsuit in 2019 alongside the California-based Transgender Law Center. The U.S. Department of Justice found in 2014 that incarcerated trans people are much more likely to experience sexual violence behind bars from staff members and other incarcerated people, with 35% of trans inmates surveyed reporting having been assaulted in the previous 12 months. A 2007 study of trans women in California prisons found that 59% reported having been sexually assaulted during their incarceration, a rate 13 times higher than for others housed in prisons. Get top headlines and KUNC reporting directly to your mailbox each week when you subscribe to In The NoCo. * indicates required Email * Colorado's case comes amid a growing number of lawsuits across the country aimed at improving access to gender-affirming care and safety for incarcerated trans people. In a landmark 1994 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prison officials' "deliberate indifference" to a prisoner's safety concerns violates the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishments" clause. Since then, incarcerated trans people have won legal cases against prison administrators in Washington, Georgia, California, and Idaho. And while a handful of states, including Colorado, have written policies regarding gender-affirming care and surgery, the barriers to accessing care are often insurmountable -- an issue the consent decree hopes to address. California became the first state to establish policies on gender-affirming medical care in prisons, providing gender-affirming surgery starting in 2017. In 2019, a three-judge panel ruled that the state of Idaho was required to perform a surgery officials had previously denied. One incarcerated person in Colorado has had gender-affirming surgery, according to a Department of Corrections spokesperson. The Constitution requires jails and prisons to provide the same standard of care available in the community, said Matthew Murphy, an assistant professor of medicine and behavioral sciences at Brown University and a physician who oversees gender-affirming clinical care for the Rhode Island Department of Corrections. (Matthew and Taliyah are not related.) "With Medicaid and private insurance increasingly covering gender-affirming care," he said, "there's a growing precedent." There were 148 trans women housed in Colorado prisons as of December, according to a Department of Corrections spokesperson, with nine trans women residing in women's facilities. Before 2018, trans women were housed exclusively with men. The class-action lawsuit relates only to trans women and does not include trans men, nonbinary people, or intersex people. The lawsuit was filed after a young trans woman who had previously been housed with girls in a juvenile facility was transferred to an adult men's prison, where she was brutally raped. Her numerous requests to be housed with other women, citing safety concerns, had been denied. After taking on the woman's case, Greisen quickly stumbled upon many more trans women who had experienced similar violence. She contacted the Colorado attorney general's office and governor's office, but little changed, prompting her to file the class action. "The Department of Corrections in every state -- it's like trying to turn around the Titanic. There's so much bureaucracy," Greisen said. "You often have to sue to get their attention." The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the leading professional organization that sets standards for the medical treatment of people with gender dysphoria, recommends an "informed consent model" that allows patients to pursue gender-affirming care, including surgery, without having to undergo extensive psychological counseling. But Colorado's prison system, like many across the country, doesn't adhere to those standards. Current corrections department policies require trans women to receive multiple recommendation letters from medical and mental health providers to be considered for transition-related surgery. Often, prisons offer gender-affirming care "on paper" but lack qualified providers, making the care impossible to get, according to Matthew Murphy. That was the case for Taliyah Murphy, who pursued gender-affirming surgery twice during her incarceration. Murphy went to prison in 2009, after a conviction resulting from an altercation with her abusive boyfriend, according to the lawsuit. Her sentence was reduced in 2013, she said. In 2019, she finally received a recommendation for surgery to treat her gender dysphoria from a corrections department psychiatrist. But she was told that her other medical providers didn't have the necessary training to evaluate her, according to the lawsuit, which halted the process. She received surgical treatment only after her release from prison in 2020, she said. Gender dysphoria, left untreated, can result in depression, anxiety, thoughts of self-harm, and suicidality -- all of which already affect trans people disproportionately because of the discrimination, stigma, and other social stressors they face. "Those things are generally resolved, or improved at least, by undergoing gender-affirming clinical care -- whether that's medical, procedural, or surgical," Matthew Murphy said. But prison systems are dragging their feet in providing treatment, he said, and a national shortage of gender-affirming care providers and surgeons makes matters worse. "And so, people are then forced to go to the courts," he said. The consent decree will create two new voluntary housing options for trans women incarcerated in Colorado to better meet their specific needs and improve their safety. A voluntary 100-bed transgender unit, whose development is already underway, will be on the grounds of the men's Sterling Correctional Facility. For those approved to move to the women's prison, they will spend a few months in the 44-bed integration unit outlined in the consent decree. That adjustment time will be critical for both the cisgender women already housed in the women's prison and the trans women who are likely leaving traumatic situations in the men's prisons, said Shawn Meerkamper, senior staff attorney for the Transgender Law Center, who worked on the case. "We have seen in other places when folks are just dropped in a really new environment, it can be a sink-or-swim situation," Meerkamper added. Eligibility for the units would be decided on a case-by-case basis by a committee, including medical and psychiatric experts trained in gender-affirming care as well as prison officials, according to the settlement. But regardless of placement, Colorado's corrections department would still be legally required to provide trans women adequate mental and physical health care. "Trans women should not be forced to go to the trans unit or to a women's prison if that's not what they want," Meerkamper said. "And they cannot be punished or retaliated against for refusing to go." In response to the lawsuit, the Department of Corrections has hired an independent medical expert from Denver Health, as well as a gender-affirming care specialist, to help oversee requests for housing assignments and surgical consults. Taliyah Murphy hopes the new housing units and improved access to gender-affirming care will allow incarcerated trans women to focus less on safety and survival and more on rehabilitation and planning their lives outside prison walls. "We want them to leave better off than they came in and get the care they need," said Murphy, who is now a small-business owner in Colorado Springs and is pursuing her bachelor's degree in finance and accounting. "That's what this is all about." KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF -- an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF. [GN] CONTINENTAL AG: Faces Suit Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Continental, Michelin, Nokian Tyres, Goodyear, Pirelli, Bridgestone, and up to 100 unnamed defendants have been accused of violating federal anti-trust law in an alleged price-fixing scheme. California resident Rena Sampayan filed suit, seeking class action certification, in New York District Court. Treble damages and injunctive relief are sought. The class action includes those who purchased tires directly from any of the defendants at "supracompetitive prices," which the suit says could involve millions of people in the U.S. The plaintiff alleges that manufactures agreed to artificially increase and fix the prices of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks, and buses sold in the U.S. "Defendants coordinated price increases, including through public communications," the complaint states. ". . . For most of the 2010s, the price level of tires was stable, changing only by small amounts slowly. Over the last four years, however, the prices of tires have seen dramatic increases, driven by lock-step price increases from the major U.S. tire manufacturers." According to the complaint, between 2021 and 2023, the average price of tires rose 21.4%, which was more than 70% above core inflation. "Prices for tires have remained high despite easing inflation and dissipating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic," it states. "And defendants' price increases are disproportionate to their increased costs during the pandemic. For example, in its Q1 2022 earnings call on May 6, 2022, Goodyear's chief financial officer told investors, '[Goodyear's] increase in the replacement tire prices more than offset [its] costs.' "Sales volume also did not suffer due to price increases, which would normally be seen in a price-competitive market. For example, Continental's sales volume rose by 19.3% in 2022." The plaintiff also argues that, in 2022, Bridgestone, Michelin, and Goodyear made up about 64% of the entire replacement tire market, including six subsidiary brands: Despite inflation easing and supply chain logistics recovering last year, the defendants continued to pass inflated costs on to consumers even with excess supply, according to the complaint. "A smaller number of negotiators makes it easier for the conspirators to agree on a cartel price, to allocate market shares, to conceal their collusion, to develop enforcement mechanisms, and to detect and punish cheaters," it states. "Tire manufacturers face significant entry and exit barriers that lead to market concentration which facilitates collusion." Those barriers include large upfront capital investments to build facilities near consumers and avoid high shipping costs, building a large labor force or automated processes, and patenting products; all of which make it cheaper for companies to consolidate than going out of business, the complaint states. It also notes that manufacturers can increase selling prices without suffering a substantial reduction in demand because tires are always needed -- similar to gas prices and demand. Consumers can also combine tire brands if they wish to not replace the entire set, making prices the primary way for companies to compete. "The avoidance of price-based competition is the primary motivation for forming a cartel," the complaint states. "Thus, cartels are more likely when the participants sell interchangeable products." To back up the plaintiff's allegations, it's also noted that Bridgestone and Continental have paid fines and reached settlements in the past over anti-trust law violations in South Africa and California. On Jan. 30, the European Commission shared it had been carrying out unannounced inspections of tire company properties because of concerns that the companies "may have violated EU anti-trust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices (Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)." "The Commission is concerned that price coordination took place amongst the inspected companies, including via public communications," a news release from the commission states. The commission didn't disclose which companies had been inspected. Reuters reports Pirelli, Continental, Michelin, and Nokian Tyres were raided by EU anti-trust regulators on Jan. 30, causing shares for each company to drop. [GN] DANONE WATERS: Morgan Lewis Attorneys Discuss Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Ari m. Selman, Esq., and Celia Calano Bologna, Esq., of Morgan Lewis, disclosed that a recent decision by a federal district court concerning the use of the term "carbon neutral" may be a harbinger of similar claims and, in any event, serves as a reminder to consumer goods manufacturers and marketers of the importance of setting out their environmental claims with precision and ample substantiation and to consider providing access to information on that substantiation. In the subject decision, a federal district court permitted a class action lawsuit against Danone Waters to advance beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage based on allegations that the company's claim that Evian brand water was "carbon neutral" was unfair and deceptive under state consumer protection laws. District Judge Nelson S. Roman's decision denying Danone's motion to dismiss most of the plaintiffs' claims highlights the potential legal exposure concerning the use of environmental marketing claims, including the importance of specificity and substantiation. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS The plaintiff consumers alleged that Danone's claim of carbon neutrality violated a number of state consumer protection laws barring unfair and deceptive trade parties laws, including New York General Business Law (GBL) Sections 349 and 350, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A (Chapter 93A), and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CCLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq. The plaintiffs also asserted claims again Danone for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The central thrust of the plaintiffs' suit was that Danone's claim that its Evian brand of water is "carbon neutral" was false and misleading because a reasonable consumer would conclude that this meant the bottling of Evian is sustainable and does not leave a carbon footprint, notwithstanding their allegations that the bottling process releases carbon dioxide. The plaintiffs allege they paid a "price premium" based on Danone's representations about its carbon emissions. Danone moved to dismiss, arguing that the company's claim that the bottling process was "carbon neutral" was accurate because (1) when carbon offsets are considered zero net emissions were produced and (2) an independent third party, Carbon Trust, had certified that Evian was "carbon neutral." Danone further argued that no reasonable consumer would interpret "carbon neutral" to mean that Evian bottling emitted zero carbon dioxide emissions given that "(1) no carbon zero products exist, (2) the dictionary definition of 'carbon neutral' describes the use of offsets to balance emissions, and (3) the Product's website explains Evian® water's approach to reducing and offsetting carbon emissions." The plaintiffs responded that Danone fails to disclose "how it calculates its carbon neutrality, the meaning of the Carbon Trust standard and how Defendant complies to that standard, and whether the standards themselves are 'carbon neutral' in that any pollution output is truly offset by other projects." JUDGE REJECTS DANONE'S ARGUMENTS FOR EARLY DISMISSAL OF MOST CLAIMS Judge Román denied Danone's motion to dismiss most claims asserted, concluding that the phrase "carbon neutral" is a technical term, which may be confusing and ambiguous to consumers, and that a reasonable consumer could plausibly conclude that "carbon neutral" meant that no carbon is emitted at all during Evian's bottling. Judge Román further found that a reasonable consumer could conflate the terms "carbon neutral," "carbon zero," and "carbon free," particularly given the plaintiffs' allegations that nearly 60% of consumers did not understand the meaning of "carbon neutral." Accordingly, the court concluded at the motion-to-dismiss stage that it had been sufficiently alleged that Danone's claim that Evian was "carbon neutral" could mislead consumers. As further support for his conclusion, Judge Román relied on the dictionary definition of carbon neutral -- which "lack[ed] specificity and may be difficult to comprehend" [4] -- as well as the US Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (the Green Guides), which caution marketers against making claims of "unqualified general environmental benefit." [5] Judge Román reasoned that, as alleged, Danone's "carbon neutral" claim constitutes such a claim. As Chapter 93A incorporates FTC regulation, Judge Román deemed the Green Guides informative. While Danone argued that its inclusion of a link on the Evian bottle label -- further explaining the issue of carbon neutrality -- minimized any potential consumer confusion, Judge Román rejected that this reference alone was curative and found that any labels used needed to be reasonably clear to consumers without further research by the customer. Finally, Judge Román concluded that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that they suffered an injury, namely that they paid a price premium based on Danone's environmental claims. For similar reasons, Judge Román also denied Danone's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for violation of Chapter 93A, violation of CCLRA, breach of express warranty (California), unjust enrichment (California), and fraud. However, Judge Román dismissed the plaintiffs' remaining claims, including their claims for violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350, on the grounds that there were no allegations the relevant activity occurred in the State of New York, and breach of implied warranty (Massachusetts, New York, and California). KEY TAKEAWAYS Legal Exposure - Carbon Neutral Claims. Judge Román's decision underscored that companies claiming a product is "carbon neutral" or has "net zero" emissions, or making similar environmental claims, face heightened potential for litigation and related potential exposure under state consumer protection laws and state common law. Importance of the Green Guides. The court's reliance on the Green Guides in denying Danone's motion to dismiss underscores the importance of that guidance. While the FTC is expected to update its Green Guides later this year, companies should take steps to ensure their compliance with the guidance as issued for risk mitigation and compliance purposes. They should also plan to adjust their marketing and consumer-facing statements once the updated Green Guides are issued. Shifting Legal Landscape. The decision comes on the heels of a trifecta of California laws imposing sweeping new greenhouse gas emissions disclosures. One of those laws, the Voluntary Carbon Markets Disclosures Act, requires any company doing business in California, and that makes any claim about achieving net-zero emissions or carbon neutrality, to make extensive new disclosures. For more information on the new California laws, please see our thought leadership California Requires Companies to Disclose Climate Change Risks, GHG Emissions and 5 Things to Know About California's New Climate Disclosure Law. HOW WE CAN HELP This recent decision, while only one decision by a federal district court, serves as an important reminder of the need to carefully evaluate environmental marketing statements. It may be appropriate to document that the claims are substantiated by competent evidence and provide robust, apparent, and accessible information about such claims. Our team of consumer protection and advertising lawyers can help advise on these issues. This decision may incentivize lawyers to bring similar actions concerning other products' environmental claims. In reviewing environmental statements, companies should review internal processes and document both the internal and consumer-facing work with an eye toward potentially documenting the record of measures that demonstrate compliance and robust consumer disclosures. It may be prudent to perform a review or audit of current environmental marketing claims. Our dedicated team of consumer protection and advertising lawyers that can help with those efforts. [GN] DOORDASH INC: Judge Grants Motion to Extend Discovery Period ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a federal judge in Maryland granted a motion to extend the discovery period for a class action lawsuit against DoorDash claiming the food delivery service charges unlawful fees. The deadline is now Feb. 16. In a complaint filed against DoorDash last September, a group of consumers claim the company charges fees to its delivery drivers and restaurant merchants that cause consumers to "bear the unsettling burden of the increased cost." "Because DoorDash's hidden fees (which include hidden commission, marketing, sponsored listing and credit card transactions fees) reduce profit margins on food orders, restaurants must increase their prices," the DoorDash class action states. The group of consumers claim DoorDash also charges users a variety of misleading and deceptive fees, including so-called "city" fees that "create the illusion for consumers that local governments impose these fees on orders." DoorDash charges delivery fees despite not performing deliveries, class action claims DoorDash charges its users a number of delivery fees despite the company allegedly not conducting the deliveries themselves, the DoorDash class action alleges. "DoorDash's fees are deceptive, misleading and otherwise fraudulent. DoorDash promises services that it does not provide, including charging consumers a premium amount for deliveries that DoorDash does not perform," the DoorDash class action states. Consumers want to represent a nationwide class of DoorDash users who were "inappropriately and illegally charged" by paying any combination of a delivery fee, express (or priority) delivery fee, extended range delivery fee, marketing fee or commission fee after placing an order on the DoorDash app or website. The class action lawsuit claims DoorDash is guilty of unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraud or deceit and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, among other things. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award of monetary and treble damages for themselves and all class members. In JUly 2022, a consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against DoorDash, arguing the company falsely advertises it charges no delivery fees despite adding fees in the prices of items purchased for delivery. Have you been charged a fee on a delivery order made through DoorDash? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas R. Bundy, III, Leslie J. Bryan, Lovita Tandy and Andrew D. Herman of Lawrence & Bundy LLC. The DoorDash fees class action lawsuit is Hecox, et al. v. DoorDash Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01006, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. [GN] DUNKIN' DONUTS: Discriminates People With Lactose Allergies ----------------------------------------------------------- Daily Coffee News reports that United States coffee giant Dunkin' is facing a class action lawsuit alleging discrimination against people with lactose allergies or intolerances by up-charging for non-dairy milks. Lawyers representing a group of 10 plaintiffs are accusing the company of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as state laws in California, New York, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii. In a lawsuit filed Dec. 26 in the Northern California U.S. District Court, the plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in damages. A separate class action suit filed in 2022 that bears similar allegations of ADA violations for non-dairy milk up-charges by Starbucks is still moving through a Florida U.S. District court. Given the prominence of Starbucks and Dunkin' in the U.S. coffee retail landscape, both cases are expected to create a ripple effect in policies and pricing related to milk pricing in coffee retail settings. The Dunkin' suit claims that dairy milk allergies and lactose intolerance each constitute disabilities under ADA regulations, and that Dunkin' is discriminating against patrons by charging an extra 50 cents to $2.15 for the use of non-dairy alternatives such as soy, oat, coconut or almond milks. "Defendant's Surcharge is the same for all Non-Dairy Alternatives, making no distinction among the costs of the various different Non-Dairy Alternatives [sic.]," the complaint states. "In fact, Dunkin created a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk." The suit further claims that "there is no material difference between the price of lactose-containing milks and the price of Non-Dairy Alternatives that would support levying the Surcharge to substitute for a Non- Dairy Alternative in Dunkin drinks." As of this writing, Dunkin' had not yet responded to DCN's request for comment. Given the increasing popularity of non-dairy milk over the past decade -- particularly the steep rise in commercial oat milk usage -- its pricing in coffee shops has remained a contentious topic. Various animal rights and environmental groups have actively campaigned against upcharges for non-dairy milks, while some specialty coffee chains -- including Stumptown Coffee Roasters and Blue Bottle Coffee -- have made oat milk the default milk option for U.S. stores. Starbucks, which remains a defendant in the Florida lawsuit, dropped upcharges for non-dairy milks in the UK market in 2021. "Defendant's Surcharge is the same for all Non-Dairy Alternatives, making no distinction among the costs of the various different Non-Dairy Alternatives [sic.]," the complaint states. "In fact, Dunkin created a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk." The suit further claims that "there is no material difference between the price of lactose-containing milks and the price of Non-Dairy Alternatives that would support levying the Surcharge to substitute for a Non- Dairy Alternative in Dunkin drinks." As of this writing, Dunkin' had not yet responded to DCN's request for comment. Given the increasing popularity of non-dairy milk over the past decade -- particularly the steep rise in commercial oat milk usage -- its pricing in coffee shops has remained a contentious topic. Various animal rights and environmental groups have actively campaigned against upcharges for non-dairy milks, while some specialty coffee chains -- including Stumptown Coffee Roasters and Blue Bottle Coffee -- have made oat milk the default milk option for U.S. stores. Starbucks, which remains a defendant in the Florida lawsuit, dropped upcharges for non-dairy milks in the UK market in 2021. [GN] EPIC GAMES: Feb. 29 Fortnite Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ Krishna Iyer, writing for News of Universe, reports that Fortnite, the multiplayer shooting game that enables up to 100 receivers to convene on a digital island and engage in fierce combat to secure the top spot, has evolved into a cultural sensation since its launch approximately six years ago. In December, U.S. The Federal Trade Commission asked Epic Games to disburse $275 million in order to resolve allegations of breaching the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act under the Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim 2024. Additionally, the company pledged to reimburse $245 million to its customers due to allegations of employing deceitful online strategies, known as "dark patterns," to deceive countless players of various age groups into making undesired acquisitions. The readers who are eager about the settlement claim can read this article to get the comprehensive information about Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim Eligibility 2024 and Fortnite Settlement Payment Date 2024. Fortnite, the popular multiplayer shooting game, agreed to pay $275 million to settle allegations of violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act as part of the Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim 2024 on the order of the Federal Trade Commission (F.T.C). The company also committed to refunding $245 million to customers following accusations of using deceptive online tactics to trick players into making unwanted purchases. The eligible candidates who are 18 years or more than that can claim the Fortnite Class Action $245 Million Settlement Claim 2024 by visiting the official website. Fortnite Settlement Claim Amount 2024 Scheme Name Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim 2024 Organized by The Federal Trade Commision (F.T.C) Administered by Federal Government of United States of America Country United States of America Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim Form 2024 Last Date 29th February, 2024 Fortnite Settlement Claim Amount 2024 $245 Million State New York, California and Florida Category Finance Year 2024 Check the Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim Eligibility 2024 in the points below. To complete a claim form, it is necessary to be at least 18 years old. In the event that you have not reached the age of 18, it is required for a parent or guardian to fill out the claim form on your behalf. Between January 2017 and September 2022, you incurred charges in the form of in-game currency for items that were not desired by you. Your credit card was used by your child without your knowledge to make unauthorized charges from January 2017 to November 2018. Your account underwent a lockout period spanning from January 2017 to September 2022 subsequent to your complaint to the credit card company regarding erroneous charges. All Recipients who wish to apply for the Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim Form 2024 can visit the official website i.e. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds can follow the step given below: Firstly it is mandatory for the receivers to acknowledge whether or not they qualify for the Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim 2024. Next the receivers have to find their Epic account ID either from Epic Games website or through locate their claim ID emailed by FTC to move to the next step. Then they will need to visit the official website of Fornite Class Action Settlement Claim 2024 i.e. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds which is specially designed for the sake of settlement claim for the receivers. Now the receiver needs to locate the claim form for the Fornite Class Action Settlement Claim Form 2024 on the website through which the recipient will get $245. Next the receiver needs to complete the form by providing all the essential information regarding your Fortnite account, and any personal details such as name, date of birth, address, phone number, email id and any more are included. Then the recipients should carefully review the information provided in the claim form and proceed to click on the submit button in order to finalize the form and save the entered details. Once the claim form has been submitted, the recipients are required to look for the approval from the claim administrator. After receiving approval, any inquiries regarding the mentioned damage in the form can be addressed. Once all necessary procedures are successfully completed, the recipients will receive the settlement funds. Fortnite Settlement Claim Payment Date 2024 All receivers who meet the necessary requirements established by the F.T.C and are interested in submitting an application for the claim can access the official website at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds to claim the Fortnite Settlement Claim Payment Date 2024 of $245. The compensation claim process is estimated to take approximately one month to finalize. Previously, the F.T.C had set a deadline of January 17, 2024, for claim submissions, but it has now been extended to February 29,2024. FAQs On Fortnite Settlement Claim 2024 What is the Fortnite Settlement Amount 2024? The Fortnite Settlement Amount 2024 to be paid to the receivers is $245. What is the last date to fill the Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim Form 2024? The last date to fill the Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim Form 2024 is February 29,2024. What is the age criteria for the receivers to apply for Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim 2024? The age criteria for the receivers to apply for Fortnite Class Action Settlement Claim 2024 is 18 years or more than that and if the receiver is less than 18 years old a parent or guardian is required to fill out the claim form on the behalf of the receiver. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: No Settlement in Cruze Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Chevrolet Cruze class action lawsuit that lingered for years in court may finally really be over as the federal judge hearing the case refused to reconsider an alleged $2.4 million settlement with Bosch. The plaintiffs who sued purchased 2014-2015 Chevy Cruze diesel vehicles which allegedly contained illegal emissions "defeat devices" made by parts supplier Bosch. The class action lawsuit alleges Cruze owners overpaid for their vehicles because GM and Bosch duped them into buying the vehicles. After five years in court, the judge could still find no evidence the Cruze vehicles were defective due to alleged emissions defeat devices. In January 2023 the plaintiffs and Bosch entered a settlement agreement for "not more than $2,375,000," but in July 2023 the entire GM/Bosch class action lawsuit was dismissed. The judge dismissed the class action altogether because the lawsuit claims were preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. As supported by an appeals court, the judge ruled the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies call the shots regarding emissions regulations. The judge determined a vehicle owner, attorney, judge or jury had no legal right to question Congress and federal agencies concerning emissions regulations. Bosch terminated its settlement agreement with the plaintiffs one week later, but the plaintiffs filed court documents asking the judge to reconsider the class action settlement agreement with Bosch. It was the only way the plaintiffs and their attorneys would receive anything from a lawsuit that was argued in court for eight years. "Defendant Bosch responds that there was no pending motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement at the time for this Court to address and that it terminated the settlement agreement according to the agreement's terms, so there is nothing for this Court to consider." — Judge Thomas L. Ludington The judge sided with Bosch by finding he would need to "address a hypothetical motion for approval of a class settlement in an order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims when no such motion was pending." The judge dismissed the hope of a Bosch settlement because the settlement had not been formally approved because there was no motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement prior to July 12, 2023. The Chevrolet Cruze class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern District Of Michigan: Counts, et al., v. General Motors LLC. The plaintiffs are represented by Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, PC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Seeger Weiss LLP. [GN] GREAT DANE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Negron Claims ------------------------------------------------------- JEREMIAH NEGRON, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. GREAT DANE OPCO, LLC, d/b/a GREAT NORTHERN FOOD HALL, and BRYAN FLODMAND, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid spread of hours premium; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from 2019 until 2021. He was initially hired as a team member at Defendants' restaurant, located in Grand Central Terminal at 89 East 42nd Street, New York. One year into his employment, Plaintiff was "promoted" to the role of a supervisor, with no change in his duties or rate of pay. GREAT DANE OPCO, LLC owns a restaurant located inside of Grand Central terminal. The restaurant also included a bakery, bar, and a deli.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 HUMANA INC: Faces Class Action Over Use of AI Model --------------------------------------------------- Andrew Wolfson, writing for Louisville Courier Journal, reports that it is the kind of horror story all too familiar to people with infirm elderly parents. But this one may have an additional twist: Recovering from a broken leg, Joanne Barrows may have lost her insurance coverage for rehab care because of a decision made using artificial intelligence. According to a class action lawsuit filed in December in federal court in Louisville seeking $3 billion in damages, the nightmare for Barrows and her family began in November 2021 when the then-86-year-old fell at her home in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and fractured her leg. She was admitted to a hospital, where she was placed in a cast and put on a non-weight-bearing order for six weeks. On Nov. 26, she was transferred to Good Samaritan Society Ambassador rehabilitation facility in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. But on Dec. 9, Humana informed her it was terminating her coverage in two days, after approximately two weeks of care. Barrows and her family appealed Humana's denial, but their efforts were unsuccessful. Barrows and her doctor were bewildered by Humana's premature termination of coverage, according to the lawsuit, because she was still under the non-weight-bearing order for four more weeks. The family couldn't afford to pay for Good Samaritan out of pocket, so they moved her to a personal care center that was cheaper, but the care was substandard and Barrows deteriorated, the suit says. As a result, Barrows' family had to make another difficult decision and end her care. On Dec. 22, 2021, she returned home but was not healthy enough to be there safely. She was unable to use her injured leg, could not go to the restroom without assistance, and still had a catheter -- a tube in her body to drain fluids. The lawsuit says her treatment by Louisville-based Humana was "illegal, malicious, and oppressive." It alleges Humana, which has six million Medicare Advantage customers, uses an error-plagued artificial intelligence algorithm to prematurely deny rehabilitative coverage to desperately ill and injured policyholders. Ryan Clarkson of Malibu, California, attorney for Barrows and other class members, did not respond to questions. Barrows is one of only two plaintiffs in the suit cited by name. Humana spokesman Mark Taylor said it does not comment on pending litigation. The suit says Humana's use of the AI model forces families to make cruel decisions to cover disallowed rehab care out of pocket, possibly driving them into bankruptcy, or to forgo care altogether, putting their lives at risk. Filed by the Clarkson Law Firm of Malibu, California, the suit alleges Humana reaps a windfall by charging for care it does not deliver. The complaint alleges Humana employees can be disciplined or even fired for deviating from the length of treatment dictated by the algorithm, though the firm declined to release the names of anybody who had been disciplined. The same law firm filed a similar class action against Insurance giant United Health Care, the nation's largest provider of Medicare Advantage coverage. All Medicare Advantage policyholders, including Humana's, can appeal adverse decisions, and they win 90% of the time, according to the lawsuit, saying this is proof of the algorithm's inaccuracy. But Humana continues to use it because only about 0.2% of policyholders appeal, according to StatNews, an online medical newspaper that has pioneered coverage of AI in medicine. Taylor, Humana's spokesman, confirmed it uses what it calls "augmented intelligence" to ensure "high-quality, safe and efficient care." He added that augmented intelligence always has a "human in the loop" and that coverage is denied only by medical directors, not an algorithm. Plaintiff lawyers refused to address the discrepancy between their claims and Humana's response. A public relations representative for the law firm said its attorney were too busy to be interviewed. But citing the case of Barrows, the lawsuit says when Humana cuts off coverage for rehab care, it forces policyholders and their adult children to have to make cruel decisions to either pay for rehab out of pocket -- risking bankruptcy -- or forgo care the patient cannot live without. Disputes over insurance coverage predate artificial intelligence, of course. In 1998, a jury in Louisville awarded more than $13 million to a woman who claimed Humana Health Plan acted in bad faith when it refused to pay for a hysterectomy her doctor said was necessary to cure her cervical cancer. The case was later settled for $2 million. [GN] INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL: Faces Class Action in Australia Over CFDs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finance Magnates reports that International Capital Markets, trading as IC Markets, is facing a class-action lawsuit brought by Piper Alderman for selling contracts for differences (CFDs) instruments to retail investors. It was the second such class-action lawsuit faced by the Sydney-based broker. Piper Alderman's lawsuit represents "everyday Australian investors who have collectively lost hundreds of millions of dollars trading controversial financial products called [CFDs]." CFDs Are Risky, but Legal CFDs are leveraged derivative instruments that are considered risky for retail investors. However, such instruments are legal in Australia, and the brokers, including IC Markets, offering them are regulated by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. The class-action lawsuit brings allegations of "unconscionable conduct and misleading and deceptive conduct" against the broker between September 2017 and March 2021. It highlighted that "investors suffered losses in circumstances where IC Markets did not adequately assess their objectives, financial situations and where the risks of investing were inadequately disclosed." Piper Alderman brought the class-action lawsuit against IC Markets after commencing a potential investigation last October. The lawsuit is being funded by United Kingdom-based Woodsford, also backing a similar class-action lawsuit against IG Markets. "Woodsford is committed to backing this action against IC Markets on behalf of those people who have suffered loss trading these excessively risky and complex products," said Woodsford's Chief Investment Officer, Charlie Morris. With the class-action, Piper Alderman is seeking to provide a remedy and recover losses for the retail investors involved. "Piper Alderman is pleased to have commenced this class-action on behalf of everyday Australian retail investors, many of whom have suffered significant financial losses and distress as a result of being offered highly leveraged CFDs when they had little or no experience in trading complex financial products," Piper Alderman's Partner, Kate Sambrook, said. A spokesperson from IC Markets told Finance Magnates: "The claims in the case brought against IC Markets are entirely meritless, and will be vigorously defended. Our CFD products have consistently complied with all regulations, and we pride ourselves on providing efficient, honest and fair services to our clients. This case is simply the latest in a series of copy-cat class actions against, it seems, any and all CFD brokers in Australia, driven by plaintiffs' lawyers and litigation funders. It has absolutely no bearing on our current operations and will have no impact on our clients or our broader business. Aussie Law Firms Hitting CFDs Brokers The first class-action lawsuit against IC Markets was filed in December by Echo Law. The allegations against the broker in both lawsuits are similar. Last May, Piper Alderman filed a class-action lawsuit against IG Markets, alleging the marketing of CFDs to inexperienced traders without any safeguards. The law firm Willian Roberts also brought a class-action lawsuit against IG Markets, and later, the two lawsuits against the broker were consolidated. Sydney-based Banton Group is also investigating against IG Markets. Plus500 and CMC Markets are two other brokers facing class-action lawsuits in Australia for offering CFDs. [GN] INTUIT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $141 Million ------------------------------------------------------ Smriti Mathur, writing for WBHRB, reports that New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced that TurboTax's parent company, Intuit, has reached a $141 million settlement to compensate nearly 4.4 million consumers across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This settlement is a response to allegations of deceptive marketing practices by Intuit, where they advertised tax-filing services as free to consumers who were not eligible for such services due to specific tax situations. This misleading marketing tactic has been described as "predatory and deceptive" and has particularly disadvantaged low-income Americans who need to fulfil their tax filing obligations. The settlement aims to rectify this issue and compensate those who were misled into paying for services advertised as free. The roots of the settlement trace back to an investigation into Intuit's marketing and sales practices surrounding its TurboTax online tax preparation products. Central to the controversy was the allegation, spearheaded by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2022, that Intuit misleadingly used the term "free" in its advertising. This led consumers to believe they could file their taxes at no cost. However, the FTC pointed out that the free service was not available to a significant portion of taxpayers, including those with certain forms of income like gig economy earnings or farm income. In 2020, it was estimated that around two-thirds of tax filers could not use TurboTax's free product due to these restrictions. Intuit defended its practices, asserting the credibility of its free filing options and highlighting its participation in the IRS Free File program. However, amidst the allegations and following an investigation, a settlement was reached in May 2022. This settlement not only aims to compensate affected consumers but also serves as a corrective measure against misleading marketing practices, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in providing tax preparation services. Eligibility Criteria for TurboTax Class Action Settlement The eligibility criteria for the TurboTax Settlement focus on individuals who utilized TurboTax for filing their federal tax returns for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018 but were eligible for the free version offered through the IRS Free File program. Here's a detailed breakdown of who qualifies: Targeted Tax Years: The settlement specifically targets taxpayers who paid to file their federal tax returns with TurboTax during the tax years 2016, 2017, and 2018. Eligibility for Free File: To be eligible for a settlement payment, individuals must have been qualified for the free file option during these years. The Free File program is designed for lower to moderate-income taxpayers, with the eligibility threshold being an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $64,000 or less for the 2016 tax year, adjusting slightly in subsequent years. Use of TurboTax's Free Version Initially: Eligible individuals are those who began their tax filing process using TurboTax's free software for any of the specified tax years but were informed during the process that they did not qualify for the free version and subsequently paid Intuit to complete and file their tax return. No Previous Use of Free File Product: Additionally, to qualify for a payment under this settlement, individuals must not have used Intuit's Free File product in any previous year before the tax year for which they are claiming eligibility. TurboTax Settlement Amount Total Settlement Fund: Intuit has agreed to a $141 million settlement to resolve the claims. This fund is intended to compensate approximately 4.4 million consumers across the United States who meet the eligibility criteria. Individual Payment Amounts: The amount each eligible consumer receives is based on the number of tax years they qualify for under the settlement terms. Most recipients are expected to receive between $29 and $30 per eligible tax year. Consequently, individuals who paid for TurboTax services in all three specified tax years (2016, 2017, and 2018) could receive up to $85. Variation in Payment Amounts: The exact amount may vary slightly based on the total number of eligible claimants and the administrative costs associated with distributing the settlement. However, the aim is to distribute the funds as equitably as possible among those affected. How to get Turbotax Class Action Settlement Payment? The TurboTax settlement involves a comprehensive payment distribution process that eligible consumers can expect to receive. Here's a detailed overview of the distribution mechanism and the financial aspects of the settlement: Automatic Payment: Eligible consumers do not need to file a claim to receive their settlement payment. The process is designed to be automatic, with checks mailed directly to those who qualify based on the information available to the settlement administrators. Notification by Email: Rust Consulting, the settlement fund administrator, notifies eligible consumers via email. This communication is crucial as it informs individuals of their eligibility and provides details about the settlement. Timing of Payment: The initial distribution of checks is scheduled to begin in May 2023. The exact timing of when an individual receives their check may vary, depending on factors such as the mailing schedule and the volume of payments being processed. The TurboTax Settlement marks a significant moment in consumer protection, highlighting the importance of transparent and honest marketing practices, especially in essential services like tax filing. It not only rectifies the financial impact on millions of consumers who were misled into paying for free services but also sets a precedent for corporate accountability. As checks begin to reach eligible individuals, this settlement delivers not just financial restitution but also a broader message about the value of fairness and integrity in business operations. [GN] IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm common stock between January 11, 2022, and May 30, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 8, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. iRhythm develops and manufactures heart monitoring devices designed to diagnose arrythmias. The Company's principal product is a monitoring patch that provides electrocardiogram ("ECG") monitoring for up to 14 days, called Zio XT. The Zio XT is intended for non-critical patients, as it does not provide real-time reporting. In 2017, iRhythm developed Zio AT, a device the Company described as "offer[ing] the full benefits of [its] Zio XT Service, with the addition of real-time data transmission and notification of actionable clinical events." Actionable arrhythmic events include atrial fibrillation, a condition that can cause troubling symptoms and serious medical complications, including blood clots that can lead to stroke and heart failure. The Zio AT comes with a cellular transmittal device that provides connectivity between the Zio AT and the proprietary algorithmic software that analyzes the ECG data and detects arrhythmic events for the 14-day wear period. Importantly, given its purported capabilities to provide "real-time" notifications of arrhythmic events, the Zio AT device is marketed to high-risk patients as a mobile cardiac telemetry device. These types of heart monitors that are approved for high-risk patients and provide near real-time alerts are also referred to as "real-time" monitors. Real-time monitors sell for a premium over monitors that do not provide real-time notifications of arrhythmic events. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely represented to investors that the Zio AT monitor was a real-time monitor intended for high-risk patients. Specifically, Defendants repeatedly touted the potential growth for the Zio AT as an innovative product that had only just begun to penetrate the market for real-time monitoring, which investors looked upon favorably given the premium selling price associated with devices approved for high-risk patients. As a result of these misrepresentations, the price of iRhythm common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The complaint further alleges that the truth emerged through a series of disclosures beginning on November 1, 2022, when the Company reported revised fourth quarter and full-year guidance, in part due to "Zio AT utilization." The Company explained during a conference call with investors that "coming into the fourth quarter, [iRhythm] voluntarily issued a Customer Advisory Notice to [its] Zio AT customers." Consequently, the Company lowered its Zio AT forecast for the quarter from the 40% growth target it had provided through the past three quarters to just 20%. Three days later, on November 4, 2022 the Company disclosed that it initiated the Customer Advisory Notice on September 28, 2022, following issues raised by the FDA during an inspection that culminated in an inspection observation report on Form 483, and that the Customer Advisory Notice warned patients of a "labeling correction" related to "the device's maximum transmission limits during wear," as well as other critical issues that prevent the device from working as advertised. However, Defendants tried to assuage investors' concerns and continued to tout the growth of the Zio AT. Then, on May 4, 2023, the Company announced that "on April 4, 2023, [it] received a Subpoena Duces Tecum from the Consumer Protection Branch, Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting production of various documents regarding [its] products and services." Although the Company refrained from providing additional detail about the DOJ's request, in a May 5, 2023, report, J.P. Morgan analysts noted that one of iRhythm's competitors, Boston Scientific, had also disclosed that it received a subpoena from the DOJ relating to its real-time monitoring product, which indicated to the analysts that the DOJ investigation into iRhythm was related to the Zio AT. Finally, on May 30, 2023, iRhythm disclosed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA, which addressed a series of deficiencies tied to the marketing and capabilities of the Zio AT device. In particular, the FDA noted that iRhythm had falsely marketed the Zio AT as approved for use in high-risk patients that require real-time cardiac monitoring. In truth, according to the FDA, Zio AT is only approved for "long-term monitoring of arrhythmia events for non-critical care patients where real-time monitoring is not needed." As a result of these disclosures, the price of iRhythm common stock declined precipitously. If you purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. [GN] JOHNSON CITY, TN: Sean Williams Sexual Assault Class Action OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Keeling, writing for WJHL, reports that a judge hasn't yet okayed class action status in the alleged Sean Williams sexual assault victims' lawsuit against Johnson City, but the lead attorney on that effort spoke at the Feb. 6 news conference in Knoxville that also featured alleged victims' statements. Sean Williams alleged victims speak out, say city manager 'victim blamed' them "This class action will be a vehicle to allow many women, the dozens of Sean Williams survivors and the hundreds of women who were harmed by (Johnson City Police Department's) discriminatory refusal to prosecute sex abuse, to vindicate their rights," Elizabeth Kramer said. Kramer and her firm -- one of whose specialties is class action suits involving sexual abuse or assault -- first came into the picture in September 2023. That's when the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proposed amendment to their first suit that was filed in June 2023. One part of the amendment would see the establishment of a class action with three classes. The change came just a couple of weeks after News Channel 11 reported on the alleged existence of photo and video evidence showing Williams allegedly raping or sexually assaulting more than four dozen different women in his downtown Johnson City apartment. Computer files show 52 Sean Williams alleged rapes Despite reported pressure by then-federal prosecutor Kat Dahl and multiple complaints from 2019 through mid-2021, Johnson City police never charged Williams with any sexual assaults. He now faces three counts of child rape, federal counts of child pornography production and the possibility of many more adult rape counts based on the alleged photo and video evidence found after police arrested him in Cullowhee, N.C. April 29, 2023. By that time, the City of Johnson City had released the so-called "Daigle Report," an audit the city solicited of five years' worth of sexual assault reports to the Johnson City Police Department (JCPD). The report found evidence of sex bias in some JCPD responses to sexual assault complaints, and that led to a third potential class in the suit -- people who had reported sexual assaults or abuse to JCPD regardless of who the alleged perpetrator was. On Feb. 6, Kramer said the ability for some alleged victims to remain anonymous by being part of a class but not having to testify is crucial. Each class has a single representative who would bear the brunt of active participation in the lawsuit. "The pending complaint in this case is filed by three women who are using their initials and prosecuting the case as representative plaintiffs on behalf of other survivors," Kramer said. "They may at some point reveal their identities but that will not undercut the choice, often the necessity, for women to be able to participate in this lawsuit anonymously." Kramer said women who are involved in the lawsuit "have a very real threat of retaliation." She claimed that plaintiffs' attorneys in the federal civil lawsuit have evidence that makes it "clear that Sean Williams drugged and raped dozens of women and could not have done so without protection from JCPD officers." The Daigle report, Kramer said, "revealed over 250 instances of sexual assault reports that the JCPD systematically refused to investigate and sometimes actively suppressed, all based on a practice of sex discrimination. "Part of that violence is feeling alone, silenced and not believed." A judge has not yet ruled on whether to allow the amended lawsuit to proceed and the defendants have filed a motion to prevent it. Johnson City also denies all the claims in the suit, which is one of two it's facing related to Williams and the JCPD's alleged handling of his cases. The classes include: A 'sex trafficking survivor class' including anyone was was sexually abused, drugged or trafficked by Williams or an alleged co-conspirator. A 'Williams survivor subclass' including any members of the first class 'who were sexually assaulted by Sean Williams following the first report to the JCPD of Sean Williams' alleged sexual violence on or about Nov. 7, 2019. A 'reporter survivor class' of all women, including minors, who reported sexual abuse or trafficking by any person to JCPD from Jan. 1, 2018 to April 25, 2023. An earlier article on the move to create a class action, including details about the plaintiff representing the 'reporter survivor class,' can be read here. [GN] KIND LLC: Exponent's Ben Lester Discusses Class Cert. Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Lester of Exponent in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that class action lawsuits are increasingly focused on issues of alleged misrepresentation based on consumer perception and understanding of myriad consumer products and services. Given the potential size of class actions, the consequences can scale quickly for product manufacturers facing reputational and monetary damages. With so much at stake, the certification phase of a class action lawsuit -- when the court determines whether the group allegedly affected is a class in the eyes of the law -- has become increasingly important. Without certification, a lawsuit can be dismissed without moving on to the next phase: examining the merits of the claims. For example, in KIND LLC "Healthy & All Nat." Litig, 15-MD-2645, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163207 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2022), the plaintiffs who purchased KIND products alleged the product's label, "All Natural/Non GMO," was deceptive. Yet plaintiffs' interpretations of the phrase "All Natural" ranged from products "made from whole nuts, fruits, and whole grains" to products made with "ingredients [that] were not synthetic, not chemicals, [but were] natural ingredients" to products "pull[ed] out of the Earth' or 'dirt,' or 'untouched.'" Based on this testimony, the Southern District of New York declined to certify the class, finding the interpretations were so varied that "common questions no longer predominated." In other words, the complaints were not similar enough to justify combining them into one lawsuit. As this case shows, claims of misrepresentation in marketing and product labeling can benefit from human factors analysis of consumer understanding, decision-making, and purchase behavior, all of which can affect whether a group in a class action lawsuit is found to be a class or not. Analyzing misrepresentation issues using human factors techniques can help clarify consumer decision-making and behavior in class action lawsuits, which can affect any imaginable product, from a financial offering to vehicles, cosmetics, food and beverages, and medical devices. What's makes consumers a class in a class action lawsuit? Before examining the merits of class action claims, courts require class certification according to four components under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Commonality and typicality are central to determining the homogeneity and representativeness of the group of people allegedly affected by (alleged) misrepresentations about a product or service. For commonality, questions of law or fact need to be common to everyone in the class seeking certification. For typicality, stakeholders must show how well the grievances of the proposed class are represented by and reflected in those individuals who seek to represent the entirety of the class as plaintiffs. In misrepresentation claims, the allegation is often that a group of people form a class because they purchased a product for the same specific reason, and if the product manufacturer had disclosed the "truth" about some value-reducing characteristic of the product, the class would not have purchased or leased the product. Take, for example, the label of a hypothetical juice product that describes its contents as "naturally sweetened," but the item turns out to be made with processed sugar (sucrose). In this example, one group of purchasers might have read the label and bought the juice because they believed it was sweetened by fruit sugars (fructose). Had the misunderstanding been addressed by the label (i.e., that the juice was not sweetened exclusively with fructose), some consumers would not have bought it (i.e., they would have uniformly behaved in a different way). This group might be considered a class. In contrast, some consumers may not be considered part of the same class if they read the label and bought the juice because they have been buying that brand for 20 years and would not have changed their purchase decision even if they knew the "truth" about the sweetener used in the product. Determining commonality and typicality can be challenging because consumer purchase behavior is complex and motivated by many factors, including demographics, economics, cultural influences, timing, and past behavior (even that of prior generations of buyers). Purchase decisions vary widely because consumers pay attention to different sources of information, process that information differently, and apply different situational contexts, from past purchase behavior to varying financial circumstances, to the availability of alternatives, to the acute need for a given product. Factoring in human factors Human factors methodologies can illuminate consumer decision-making and purchase, lease, or subscription behavior during the certification phase of a class action by answering questions about the materiality of the representations to the purchase, prior experience and familiarity, brand loyalty, the presence of alternatives during decision-making, and potential costs associated with tradeoffs. A human factors approach can provide a better understanding of consumer purchase motivations in product labeling and marketing misrepresentation claims through surveys, deposition/case review, scientific literature analysis, expert testimony, report writing, and novel data collection. Data collection can include customized methods such as presenting representative samples of labels or advertisements to participants and documenting information that is relevant to the class action using "covert" methods such as eye tracking, which records what participants look at and how much time they spend looking at those sources. User experience testing can also put data collected from surveys and case and literature reviews to the test in a lab environment that offers product-user testing tools. Surveys and novel human factors data collection tools in real life Exponent recently put the value of a well-constructed survey and novel human factors data collection tools -- including replicating consumer targeting -- to the test in a case involving an insurance carrier. Plaintiffs alleged that the carrier's print and email marketing ads were deceptive because they gave consumers an inaccurate understanding of what the product did. Knowing the type of consumers targeted by the insurance company, we designed and conducted a survey to target consumers who had not bought the policy by presenting mock ads to would-be purchasers. We learned that the group of potential consumers uniformly misunderstood what the product did; consumers who were exposed to this marketing material believed it was an investment vehicle when, in reality, it was a policy that only paid for funeral expenses. The evolving role of online marketplaces and user testing in digital misrepresentation Digital marketing can reach many more consumers faster than print. With the potential for class action lawsuits to expand to hundreds of thousands of people who all saw the same digital ad, testing what actual users experience is increasingly important. To this end, through an experimental study, we provided one of our clients with a customized approach to test what actual users experienced online. Our client asked us to analyze a pop-up banner disclaimer and evaluate the allegation that the disclaimer was not sufficiently conspicuous. Because the website no longer existed by the time the case was litigated, we reconstructed the website from archival screen captures with an identical banner disclaimer and identical functionality, to the extent that it was relevant to the allegations in the case. Using eye tracking, we observed that most potential consumers did look at the banner, which is information that could be used to certify or decertify a class. Whether trying to certify or decertify a group of people as a class, stakeholders can turn to human factors expertise to analyze essential features of consumer decision-making and purchase behavior. Human factors experts can help illuminate the homogeneity and representativeness of members of a proposed class by analyzing how they perceive, understand, and interact with products and ads, using eye tracking and other tools for virtual platforms, which are more interactive than print forums. [GN] LITHIUM MINING: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP disclosed that on January 19, 2024, Judge Orelia Merchant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a proposed securities class action against a lithium mining company (the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants") alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In re Piedmont Lithium Inc., Sec. Litig., 21-CV-4161 (OEM) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the Company made misleading positive statements in connection with a North Carolina lithium mining project (the "Project") and that the Individual Defendants subsequently sold Company stock prior to the release of a negative news article. The Court dismissed plaintiff's claims, finding that plaintiff had failed to raise a strong inference of scienter. In 2016, the Company commenced plans to covert spodumene—a mineral that contains lithium—into battery-grade lithium hydroxide, a critical component used for electric vehicle manufacturing. According to the complaint, in February 2018, the Company became aware that it needed to obtain permits and rezoning approvals from various federal, state and local government authorities, including Gaston County's Board of Commissioners (the "County Board"). In the summer of 2018, the Company allegedly made positive statements about obtaining such permits and approvals, indicating that the applications would be submitted by April 2019. Again, in August 2019 and in early 2020, the Company allegedly repeated that the applications would be submitted soon. In July of 2021, the CEO of the Company and a project manager allegedly sold approximately $3.46 million worth of their personal stock for the first time. Three weeks later, an article reported that the Company had not presented the Project to the County Board, that certain County Board members planned to block the Project, and that the Company had not yet applied for a state mining permit, rendering its timeline unrealistic. First, the Court held that plaintiff did not sufficiently plead that the Company had motive and opportunity to commit fraud based on unusual stock sales. Specifically, the Court noted that (i) plaintiff did not allege how much certain Individual Defendants received in net profits, only what they received in gross proceeds; (ii) the percentage of stock sold was only 13.19% for the Company CEO and 31.93% for the project manager, which was a relatively low percentage; (iii) other Individual Defendants did not sell any Company stock; and (iv) the Company's alleged desire to raise capital and enter into a favorable deal with an electric vehicle company was not sufficient to establish a motive for securities fraud. Second, the Court held that plaintiff had failed to adequately plead scienter by identifying conscious misbehavior and recklessness on the part of defendants. The Court held that plaintiff pleaded only "generalized, conclusory allegations that [the Company] and the Individual Defendants, as a group, had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and omissions of material facts, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth," but failed to raise a strong inference of scienter for each Individual Defendant. The Court also held that bald allegations concerning the Individual Defendants' positions in the Company and their signatures on relevant SEC documents did not prove that Individual Defendants had access to information that contradicted their public statements about the Project at the time the statements were made. Additionally, the Court held that the mere fact that the Project's timeline was continually pushed back was insufficient to demonstrate recklessness when plaintiff "failed to sufficiently allege how or why Defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that their statements about the permitting and rezoning timelines were false, or that the changes in timelines demonstrated culpable conduct." Finally, the Court rejected plaintiff's attempt to invoke the Core Operations Doctrine, which imputes knowledge of a company's core operations to senior level management. Plaintiff alleged that each Individual Defendant knew of, or had access to, information regarding the status of the required permits and rezoning activities at the time the Company made positive statements regarding the Project. The Court held that the Core Operations Doctrine did not apply because plaintiff could not explain how the Project, which never launched, constituted "nearly all of [the Company's] business." Further, even if the Project was considered to be nearly all of the Company's business, the Court held that plaintiff merely alleged "that Defendants knew that they needed certain permits, not that the projected timelines to receive the permits were unreasonable or unrealistic." [GN] LOANDEPOT INC: Rosa Sues Over Unauthorized Access to Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN ROSA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00167 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and injunctive/declaratory relief. Between January 8, 2024 and January 22, 2024, loanDepot announced a security incident during which unauthorized parties gained access to sensitive personal information of approximately 16.6 million individuals in its systems. On January 22, 2024, in a Form 8-K/A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, loanDepot further reported, "[T]he Company has determined that an unauthorized third party gained access to sensitive personal information of approximately 16.6 million individuals in its systems. The Company will notify these individuals and offer credit monitoring and identity protection services at no cost to them." The Plaintiff applied for and obtained a personal loan from loanDepot during the summer of 2021. Through this application, Plaintiff provided Defendant his personally identifiable information. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has been injured and has financial losses and will be subject to a substantial risk for further identity theft due to Defendant's data breach. As a further result of Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff will need to purchase credit monitoring and take other measures to protect himself from identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff believed, at the time of applying for his personal loan, that loanDepot would maintain the privacy and security of the PII he provided to it. The Plaintiff further believes he paid a premium to loanDepot for its data security. The Plaintiff would not have used loanDepot had he known that it would expose sensitive PII, making them available to identity thieves, says the suit. loanDepot, Inc. is a nonbank holding company based out of Irvine, California, which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Michael W. Olson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com molson@robinsonfirm.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com LOTTERY.COM INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- On February 6, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by Lottery.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: LTRY, LTRYW) ("the Company"). In Case No. 1:22-cv-07111 (JLR), In re Lottery.com, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company's Motions to Dismiss sought dismissal of the Amended Class Action Complaint and the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Harold M. Hoffman. The Court's ruling is based on the pleadings alone and is not a determination on the merits of the case. The Court has granted the Class Action Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Harold M. Hoffman leave to amend their Complaints within twenty-one days of the date of the Court's ruling. The Company will continue to vigorously defend this matter, if necessary. Lottery.com remains steadfast in its commitment to transparency, integrity, and responsible corporate governance. For more information please contact: ir@lottery.com , or visit: http://www.lottery.com About Lottery.com, Inc. Lottery.com, Inc. is a leading technology company that is transforming how, where and when lotteries are played. Its engaging mobile and online platforms enable players and commercial partners located throughout the United States and other countries to remotely purchase safe and legally sanctioned lottery games. Lottery participants look to the Company's website, Lottery.com, for compelling, real-time results on over 800 lottery games from over 40 countries. In all that it does, Lottery.com's mission remains the same: an uncompromising passion to innovate, grow a new demographic of enthusiasts, deliver responsible and trusted solutions, and promote community and philanthropic initiatives. [GN] MAGNIS ENERGY: Gordon Legal May Fund Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Litigation Finance Journal reports that class actions representing investors who lost money due to the failings or fraudulent behaviour of corporate directors are a top target for litigation funders, with Australia being a prime jurisdiction for these claims. The appetite for these class actions has been highlighted once again as an Australian law firm has stated that it is exploring a claim, supported by litigation funding, against Magnis Energy Technologies, a battery manufacturing company.[GN] MANITOBA: Faces Class Action Over Abuse Claims at Marymound ----------------------------------------------------------- Class action firm Koskie Minsky LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of survivors of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse at Marymound group home and Marymound School in Winnipeg. The action is brought on behalf of residents of Marymound group home and day students of Marymound School who allege to have suffered abuse at Marymound at any time since 1951. In addition to the allegations of abuse at Marymound, the action alleges that the Government of Manitoba failed to properly inspect, supervise, and monitor Marymound, and continued to place children at Marymound when it knew or should have known of the abuse they would face. James Sayce, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP, commented: "The stories emerging from Marymound are alarming -- but they are finally being told. We hope this action will help survivors take a step toward healing." None of the allegations have been proven in a court of law. For more information, please contact Koskie Minsky LLP at marymoundclassaction@kmlaw.ca. [GN] MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Nutter Attorneys Discuss Breach Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- David L. Ferrera, Esq., and Ritika Bhakhri, Esq., of Nutter, in an article for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, report that discssued the cases Rezendes v. Mitsubishi Motors N. Am., Inc. No. 22-CV-10211-AK 2023 WL 1864405 (D. Mass. Feb. 9, 2023), No. 22-CV-10211-AK 2023 WL 4552030 (D. Mass. July 14, 2023) Significant holding: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act's requirement that a class claim identify at least 100 named plaintiffs was not impliedly repealed by the Class Action Fairness Act. In this putative class action, the plaintiff brought suit alleging breach of express warranty under Massachusetts state law and a violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act due to an alleged defect in Mitsubishi's 2022 Outlander that causes the vehicles' hoods to flutter and bounce when driving. Defendant Mitsubishi filed a motion to dismiss. The court began by holding that the plaintiff had adequately alleged a plausible breach of express warranty claim because the complaint alleged that the plaintiff's vehicle was covered by Mitsubishi's limited warranty and that Mitsubishi breached the limited warranty by tendering the plaintiff a vehicle with the hood defect and failing to remedy the defect. However, the court also held that in addition to the elements of his state law warranty claim, the plaintiff also needed to meet the additional requirements imposed by the MMWA, including that a class action needed to name at least 100 plaintiffs. The plaintiff's class claim did not identify at least 100 named plaintiffs, but he argued that pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, federal courts could still exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over putative class actions if there are at least 100 class members (who need not be specifically named at the time of filing). In the absence of 1st Circuit precedent on this question, the court adopted the 9th Circuit's reasoning in Floyd v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 966 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2020), which held that the plain language of the MMWA required a putative class action plaintiff to name at least 100 individuals and that the statutory requirement was not repealed simply through the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act because both statutes could co-exist. [GN] MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Mobileye Global Inc. ("Mobileye" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MBLY) securities during the period from January 26, 2023 through January 3, 2024, inclusive. Investors have until March 18, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On January 4, 2024, before the market opened, Mobileye issued a press release disclosing that it had "become aware" of a build-up of excess inventory including an estimated 6-7 million units of EyeQ SoCs held by customers. The Company stated this was a result of "supply chain constraints in 2021 and 2022 and a desire to avoid part shortages" and "lower than-expected production at certain OEM's during 2023." The Company then disclosed "the lower-than-expected volumes in the EyeQ SoC business will have a temporary impact on our profitability[.]" The Company also provided a preliminary financial outlook for 2024, in which it stated it "expect[s] Q1 revenue to be down approximately 50%, as compared to the $458 million revenue generated in the first quarter of 2023." On this news, Mobileye's stock price fell $9.75 per share, or 24.5%, to close at $29.97 per share on January 4, 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, to avoid the shortages experienced amid supply chain constraints in 2021 and 2022, the Company's Tier 1 customers had purchased inventory in excess of demand during fiscal 2023; (2) that, as a result, the Company's customers had excess inventory on hand, including approximately 6-7 million units of EyeQ SoCs; (3) that, due to the build-up of inventory, there was a significant risk that the Tier 1 customers would buy less product, thus adversely impacting the Company's fiscal 2024 financial results; and (4) 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 Mobileye securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: https://www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] MONTE A.M. INC: Espinoza Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ESPINOZA, WILMER VASQUEZ, and JOSE VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONTE A.M. INC. d/b/a VILLA MONTE PIZZERIA & RESTORANTE, 732 OLD BETHPAGE RD CORP. d/b/a VILLA MONTE PIZZERIA & RESTORANTE, ANTONIO DELPRETE, ENZO SCHIANO DI SCIOARRO, LUCAS SCHIANO, and SALVADOR PALUMBO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00505-MKB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2024) is an action seeking equitable and legal relief for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Internal Revenue Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the state and federal laws by failing to provide employees with overtime compensation for all hours worked, failing to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failing to provide payroll notices, and engaging in fraudulent filing of information returns. Plaintiffs Espinoza and Velasquez worked for the Defendants as food preparation workers from November 28, 2021 until March 10, 2023 and from January 2016 until July 2019, respectively. Plaintiff Vasquez was employed by the Defendants as a line cook starting in January 2010 until July 2019. Monte A.M. Inc., d/b/a Villa Monte Pizzeria & Restorante, is an Italian restaurant based in Old Bethpage, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicole Grunfeld, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com MOUNT SAINT MARY: Appeal Filed in Figueroa Case ----------------------------------------------- CATHERINE FIGUEROA, et al. has filed an appeal captioned Catherine Figueroa et al vs. Mount Saint Mary College, Case No. 24-00781, in the Second Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, on January 30, 2024. The lower court case, docketed as Civil Action - General, was entitled Catherine Figueroa, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mount Saint Mary College, Defendant, Case No. EF001162-2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners CATHERINE FIGUEROA, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd Seth Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 1 N. Broadway, Ste. 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3283 NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Sued Over Voyager Digital Promotional Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Kubinec, writing for Blockworks, reports that the NBA was "grossly negligent" in not blocking a promotional deal between now-bankrupt crypto firm Voyager Digital and the Dallas Mavericks, a class action suit filed in a Miami district court argues. The suit alleges the NBA had a responsibility to review all marketing campaigns pertaining to the league, including Voyager's with the Mavericks and owner Mark Cuban. The Mavericks announced a five-year exclusive partnership with Voyager in 2021, offering fans $100 in crypto for signing up to the platform. Cuban and Voyager CEO Stephen Erlich promoted the deal at a press conference with several Mavericks players. Cuban faces a class action suit of his own for his Voyager promotion. Voyager filed for bankruptcy in mid-2022 during the fallout from the collapse of crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital. Read more: Mark Cuban To Be Deposed Next Month in Voyager 'Ponzi' Suit Voyager's law firm, McCarter & English, is also named in the suit. It's the latest in a series of lawsuits athletes, sports teams, and now leagues have faced over ties to crypto firms. [GN] NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYCB" or the "Company") (NYSE: NYCB). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether NYCB and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until April 8, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired NYCB securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. 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 $3.91 per share, or 37.67%, to close at $6.46 per share on January 31, 2024. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN] PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Data Privacy Concerns ----------------------------------------------------------- CBS reports that customers seek great deals from online discount retailer Temu. However, a class-action lawsuit claims Temu is getting a lot more in return, with shoppers often unaware of the company's data collection/sharing policies and activity. Class-action lawsuits The complaint was filed in Illinois in November by the Hagens Berman law firm on behalf of seven named plaintiffs from Illinois, California, Massachusetts, and Virginia -- as well as unnamed others similarly situated. The lawsuit alleges Temu violates its customer's privacy rights by collecting private data and using "deceptive" and "unscrupulous" practices to access that data. Plaintiffs' lawyers in the lawsuit claim experts, including their independent expert, have reviewed the Temu app and found the "app is purposefully and intentionally loaded with tools to execute virulent and dangerous malware and spyware activities on user devices" and concluded, "Temu misled people about how it uses their data." "We believe that is intentional," said Jeannie Evans, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. In the complaint, Evans said, "We talk about how Temu requests at least 24 permissions for all kinds of information that would not be needed for an online shopping app." According to the complaint, those permissions include access to Bluetooth and Wi-Fi network information and biometric data like fingerprints. A second class-action lawsuit, filed in New York state in September 2023 on behalf of plaintiff Eric Hu and others, accuses Temu of collecting customers' private information and not keeping it secure. Hu v. Temu et al alleges, "Defendant grossly failed to comply with security standards and allowed its customers' financial information to be compromised, all in an effort to save money by cutting corners on security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the Breach." That complaint notes many customers reporting to the Better Business Bureau about their credit card and bank information being sold or leaked after using those accounts on Temu. Customer concerns Miguel Koenig, from Michigan, is not a member of either class-action lawsuit. But he did reach out after the CBS 2 Investigators reported a Better Business Bureau (BBB) warning about Temu in September 2023. At the time, the BBB said that Temu, a Chinese company, was warning shoppers about customer complaints and privacy concerns. The BBB had received 900 complaints in the company's first 14 months of operation. Koenig says he downloaded the Temu app, created an account, and provided Temu with his bank routing information to make future purchases easier, "so you don't have to keep putting in a debit card," he said. He bought several products for around $45. Then he said he noticed something unusual. He produced the email he sent to Temu about the sudden unknown charges on his bank account. "There were about 17 different charges . . . about $2,300 that went missing," Koenig said. He said he fought those charges with his bank. Koenig also complained about a flood of emails from other places, not Temu, about credit offers. "I mean, every day I get a letter saying, 'You just got approved,' and I never signed up for nothing," he said. Attorney Jeannie Evans says these are common issues. "We've talked to many members of the Temu platform, and we've heard similar reports," Evans said. In the class-action lawsuit, Evans' firm details how they believe customer issues like those happen when shoppers download the app. "It can collect contact information, text messages … it collects your phone device identifiers, it collects precise location data, lots of things that there's really no reason for a shopping app to need," Evans said. "In our complaint, we allege that a lot of these things … that the app does collect are not disclosed in the privacy policy." Specifically, Evans mentioned, "It can gain access to your camera on your phone; to your microphone on your phone that could be collecting biometric information, face images, voice prints." Temu's response Temu began operating in September 2022 and it spent big money on commercials during this year's Super Bowl. It's part of PDD Holdings. CBS 2 sent questions to Temu for this story about its privacy policy and the lawsuits the company faces. Here is the company response provided by a Temu spokesperson: "We categorically deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these meritless lawsuits. The complaints parrot a report put out by a short-seller, calling itself Grizzly Research, which has an obvious incentive to try to drive down Temu's stock price through misinformation. The report even includes a disclaimer that its contents are 'not statements of fact.' "The truth is that safeguarding privacy is one of Temu's core values. Our privacy practices are in line with industry standards and are transparently disclosed in our Privacy Policy. Temu also has a "permissions" section in the Temu app and website that clearly explains the device features that Temu does and does not access. "We do not sell customer data to third parties." [GN] PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Malone Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Malone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; EVERSOURCE ENERGY, and CLEAResult, Case No. 1:24-cv-10261 (Jan. 30, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, addresses, contact information and utility account and usage information. The data breach (the "Data Breach") involved at least the following types of information: "name, address, contact information and utility account and usage information. During their business operations, Defendants acquired, collected, utilized, and derived a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Therefore, Defendants owed and otherwise assumed statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including to keep Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from the type of unauthorized access, disclosure, and theft that occurred in the Data Breach. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services and applications involving MOVEit, PSC stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information on its MOVEit transfer services software that was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems or of its customers' networks and systems, including CLEAResult's networks and systems. These security vulnerabilities existed as far back as 2021. As a result of the breach, unauthorized third party cybercriminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information. On May 31, 2023, PSC posted a notice on its website stating that it had found an SQL injection vulnerability in its MOVEit Transfer application dating as far back as 2021 that allowed an unauthorized third party to access Plaintiff's and Class Member's Private Information (the "Data Breach"). While PSC has not sent direct notice to the millions of individuals such as Plaintiff impacted by the Data Breach, Plaintiff did receive a breach notification from Eversource dated August 28, 2023.4 The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained; for failing to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown criminal third party; and for failing to timely identify precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Defendants maintained the Private Information of millions of individuals in a negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on computer systems and networks that utilized MOVEit, a software program which contained security vulnerabilities. These security vulnerabilities led to dozens of cyberattacks, including the cyberattack that resulted in the theft of Plaintiff's Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current Eversource customer. PSC is a Massachusetts based software company that offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 482-3700 Fax: (617) 482-3003 Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and – Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45249 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and – Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-901 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Grady Seeks to Vacate Class Cert Proceedings ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHONACIE GRADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Case No. 0:22-cv-00866-NEB-DLM (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order (1) staying this action pending completion of arbitration pursuant to Minnesota's No-Fault Act, Minn. State. section 65B.525; (2) vacating the current scheduling order, including the class certification hearing set for January 22, 2024; and (3) administratively terminating this action, retaining jurisdiction to review any legal determinations made by the arbitrators. Progressive Direct underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cpfiKX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com - and - Nathan D. Prosser HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com - and - Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Ford Allowed to Seal Exhibits ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04147-JHS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel H. Slomsky entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Seal. The Court further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall seal Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Progressive offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s4uiHp at no extra charge.[CC] PROSMILE HOLDINGS: Middleton Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prosmile Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Kristina Middleton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prosmile Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00533 (D.N.J., Jan. 30, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. ProSmile University -- https://www.prosmile.com/ -- is our in-house continuing education program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Entered in Angulo ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, a single person, ERIC KELLER, a single person, EBEN NESJE, a single person, KIRK SUMMERS, a single person, CHRISTINE BASH, individually and as a personal representative of the ESTATE OF STEVEN BASH, RAYMOND SUMERLIN JR. and MARYANN SUMERLIN, a married couple, and MARTIN WHITNEY and SHERRYL WHITNEY, a married couple, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES – WASHINGTON, a non-profit Washington corporation, also d/b/a PROVIDENCE ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER; DR. JASON A. DREYER, D.O., and JANE DOE DREYER, husband and wife and the marital community thereof; DR. DANIEL ELSKENS, D.O., and JANE DOE ELSKENS, husband and wife and the marital community thereof; and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, and any martial communities thereof, Case No. 2:22-cv-00915-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order granting stipulated motion to establish briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and providence Health & Services – Washington's Cross-motion to strike class allegations. 1. The Plaintiffs intend to file three Reply briefs in support of their Motion to Certify Class, responding to Providence's opposition, Dr. Dreyer's opposition, and Dr. Elskens' joinder and declaration on or before January 31, 2024. 2. The Plaintiffs agree to file their opposition to Providence's Cross-Motion to Strike Class Allegations on or before January 31, 2024. 3. The parties ask the Court to consider both Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Providence’s Cross-Motion to Strike Class Allegations on February 9, 2024. Providence is a not-for-profit Catholic health care system. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bvalXV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William A. Gilbert, Esq. Beth M. Bollinger, Esq. GILBERT LAW FIRM, P.S. 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 353 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 321-0750 E-mail: bill@wagilbert.com beth@wagilbert.com The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth E. Payson, Esq. Ross Siler, Esq. Caleah Whitten, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com ross.siler@dwt.com caleahwhitten@dwt.com - and - Stephen M. Lamberson, Esq. Ronald A. Van Wert, Esq. ETTER, MCMAHON, LAMBERSON, VAN WERT & ORESKOVICH, P.C. 618 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 210 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 747-9100 E-mail: lambo74@ettermcmahon.com rvw@ettermcmahon.com - and - Bryce J. Wilcox, Esq. Ryan M. Beaudoin, Esq. Jeffrey R. Galloway, Esq. James A. McPhee, Esq. WITHERSPOON BRAJCICH MCPHEE, PLLC 601 W. Main Avenue, Suite 1400 Spokane, WA 99201-0677 Telephone: (509) 455-9077 E-mail: rbeaudoin@workwith.com jgalloway@workwith.com jmcphee@workwith.com bwilcox@workwith.com PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Cert Bid in Theodore Suit Mooted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Theodore v. Purecycle Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00809 (M.D. Fla., Filed May 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order finding as moot motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. The nature of suit states securities fraud. PureCycle provides recycling services.[CC] QUOTELAB LLC: Weingrad Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Leon Weingrad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUOTELAB, LLC, D/B, /A DIRECTHEALTHINSURANCE, Case No. 2:23-cv-05007-GAM (E.D. Pa., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought against Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) for making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including his own. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. QuoteLab, LLC d/b/a DirectHealthInsurance is a Delaware LLC registered to do business in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: 215-225-5529 (CALL-LAW) Facsimile: 888-329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com R&L CARRIERS: Rubalcaba Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Joseph Rubalcaba, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV423930 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-06581-HSG. The Complaint alleges ten causes of action including: failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to pay meal period premiums; failure to rest period premiums; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages upon ending employment; failure to pay timely wages during employment; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; and unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cheryl L. Schreck, Esq. Joel Moon, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: cschreck@fisherphillips.com jmoon@fisherphillips.com - and - Anthony C. White, Esq. J. Timothy Mcdonald, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 1700 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 469-3200 Facsimile: (614) 469-3361 Email: Tony.White@ThompsonHine.com Tim.McDonald@ThompsonHine.com R.C. BIGELOW: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Class Notice Plan ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BANKS and CAROL CANTWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. R.C. BIGELOW, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06208-DDP-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order approving the Plaintiffs' class notice plan: 1. The form and content of the summary notice, long-form notice, print notice, and digital banner notice are hereby approved. 2. The Plaintiffs may engage JND Legal Administration ("JND") to implement dissemination of the class notices, substantially in the form attached as Exhibits A through D, to Plaintiffs' motion. 3. The Plaintiffs' Class Notice Plan is approved. 4. Publication notice to the Class shall be made in accordance with the Class Notice Plan detailed in Plaintiffs' motiob, which includes as follows: a. Within two weeks of this Order, JND shall establish a case website (TeaClassAction.com). b. Within four weeks of this Order, JND shall commence the publication notice plan. 5. Supplemental direct notice to the Class shall be provided as follows: a. Within two weeks of this Order, Defendant shall provide all relevant email/mailing lists (including last known names, mailing addresses, and email addresses) in its possession to JND. b. Within two weeks of receipt of the email/mailing lists from Defendant, JND shall send the long-form notice via email (or Defendant via U.S. Mail if there is no email address) to all individuals contained within the lists. R.C. Bigelow is an American manufacturer of dried teas. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8DMdKL at no extra charge.[CC] REDWIRE CORPORATION: Parties Seek Class Cert Oral Argument ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JED LEMEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. REDWIRE CORPORATION f/k/a GENESIS PARK ACQUISITION CORP., PETER CANNITO, and WILLIAM READ, Case No. 3:21-cv-01254-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Lead Plaintiff Jared Thompson's request for oral argument regarding motion for class Certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel. Redwire is an American aerospace manufacturer and space infrastructure technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dNfVSW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com - and - David M. Buckner, Esq. BUCKNER + MILES 2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 964-8003 Facsimile: (786) 523-0485 E-mail: david@bucknermiles.com REDWIRE CORPORATION: Thompson Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JED LEMEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. REDWIRE CORPORATION f/k/a GENESIS PARK ACQUISITION CORP., PETER CANNITO, and WILLIAM READ, Case No. 3:21-cv-01254-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Lead Plaintiff Jared Thompson's asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying certify a Rule 23(b)(3) Class consisting of: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Redwire securities between March 25, 2021 and March 31, 2022, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;" -- Appointing Lead Plaintiff Jared Thompson as Class Representative; and -- Appointing Steve Berman, Reed Kathrein, and Lucas Gilmore from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel. The case arises from misstatements and omissions made by Defendants about the Company's senior management and their purported commitment to being honest and principled with respect to Redwire's internal controls over its accounting, financial reporting, and ethics. Redwire Corporation is an American aerospace manufacturer and space infrastructure technology company . A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9b8Bhj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com - and - David M. Buckner, Esq. BUCKNER + MILES 2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 964-8003 Facsimile: (786) 523-0485 E-mail: david@bucknermiles.com RENTGROW INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN SZEWCZYK, v. RENTGROW, INC., and DOES 1–10, Case No. 1:22-cv-10734-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension of time to file its Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows: 1. On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Individual and Class Complaint for Damages. The Amended Complaint included allegations and claims asserted on behalf of a defined putative class. 2. On Aug. 16, 2022, the Court entered the Joint Scheduling Order, which set a deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification by Jan. 9, 2024. 3. The Joint Scheduling Order did not set any further deadlines after class certification. Instead, it provided that the parties shall propose a schedule for further fact discovery, merits- based expert discovery, a settlement conference, and dispositive motions after the Court's decision on class certification. 4. On Jan. 9, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification. The Class Certification Motion seeks certification of three defined putative classes, which modify the class definition set forth in the Amended Complaint. 5. RentGrow's current deadline to respond to the Class Certification Motion is Feb. 9, 2024. 6. Counsel for RentGrow has multiple professional obligations in Jan. and Feb. 2024 which will make it difficult for RentGrow to adequately prepare its opposition to the Class Certification Motion. RentGrow provides resident screening services to property owners and managers. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B4wgOT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Danni Shanel, Esq. William M. Taylor, Esq. Ronald I. Raether, Esq. Timothy J. St. George, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 125 High Street, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 443-3711 Facsimile: (617) 204-5150 E-mail: danni.shanel@troutman.com taylorw@pepperlaw.com ron.raether@troutman.com timothy.stgeorge@troutman.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Class Settlement in Haston Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:20-cv-01008-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order that: 1. Based on the rigorous review the Court has conducted, the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted. 2. At the preliminary approval stage, the Courts task is to evaluate whether the settlement is within the "range of reasonableness." 3. The Parties are ordered to comply with the schedule as set forth in this Order, and to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the following Settlement Class is conditionally certified for purposes of settlement, and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement (and for no other purpose and with no other effect upon the action. 5. The Settlement Class expressly excludes officers and directors of Defendants; family members of the officers and directors of Defendants; any parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, of the Defendants; and any entity in which the Defendants have a controlling interest; all judgesassigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members; all persons and entities that have released the Settlement Class Released Claims described in the Settlement Agreement prior to the Court's preliminary approval; and government entities; and any person who timely and validly excludes himself or herself from the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedures approved by the Court. 6. The Settlement Agreement provides for Defendants to: (1) establish a $33,000.00 Claims Fund for the class; (2) pay any and all costs to administer the settlement; (3) pay the Named Plaintiff an incentive payment in the amount of $2,500.00; and (4) pay attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $115,000.00. 7. No later than Feb. 9, 2024, Defendants shall provide the Class List to the Settlement Administrator. Resurgent manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wzvseP at no extra charge.[CC] RIPPLE LABS: Class Notice Granted in Part in Sostack Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY SOSTACK, et al., v. RIPPLE LABS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order granting in part motion to approve form and manner of class notice: -- Accordingly, there being no other disputes as to the form and manner of class notice, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part, and denied in part only to the extent that it seeks to send notice to non-U.S. residents. -- The Plaintiff's motion to approve the form and manner of class notice came on for hearing on Jan. 11, 2024. -- The court also heard the motion to intervene for a limited purpose, filed by non-party and proposed intervenor Payward Inc. -- The Plaintiff appeared through his counsel, Nicholas Spear and Michael Tayag. The Defendants appeared through their counsel, Andrew Michaelson and Bradley Oppenheimer. Ripple Labs operates as an enterprise blockchain company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qPn8vR at no extra charge.[CC] RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Must Oppose Crews Class Cert Bid by Feb. 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order granting joint stipulation regarding class certification schedule: 1. The deadline for the Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be February 29, 2024; 2. The deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Class Certification shall be April 19, 2024; and 3. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be May 10, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive technology and outdoor recreation company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uD2vS7 at no extra charge.[CC] RJ WALKER: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG SIMPSON and MARY PAUOLE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RJ WALKER V, LLC D/B/A MY FATHER'S MOUSTACHE, and ROBERT J. WALKER, V, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-05808-RMG (D.S.C.), the Parties request that the Court order the following: 1. Conditionally certify this matter as a collective action for actual damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and 2. Define the class as follows: "All individuals who were employed by MFM at any time within the three years prior to joining this lawsuit, who were paid a direct, or hourly, rate less than the minimum wage of Seven and 25/100 dollars ($7.25) per hour and participated in a tip pool created by MFM. 3. The Notice attached to this Consent Motion as Exhibit 1 is appropriate to provide notice to the Putative Members, via U.S. Mail and hand-delivery, and for allowing Putative Members to opt-in, or join, the class. The mailing envelope shall have a return address as follows: My Father's Moustache Collective (Class) Action Lawsuit Important Notice of Your Legal Rights PLEASE OPEN & READ P.O. Box 26170 Santa Ana, CA 92799 4. Putative Members will have 45 days from the date of the Notice to return their Consent form. Timeliness will be determined based upon the date that the Consent is postmarked or that an email is sent with the completed "Consent to Join." 5. The Parties shall use the services of a Third-Party Administrator, Simpluris, Inc. ("TPA"), to handle distribution of the various notices. 6. The Defendants shall pay all fees and costs of the TPA. The Plaintiffs Plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional class certification (FLSA) and to authorize notice to Putative Class Members on Nov. 30, 2023. The Defendants filed their Response on Dec. 14, 2023, consenting to conditional class certification, but objecting in part to the methods of notification requested by the Plaintiffs. A copy of Parties' motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HGTYEp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Melissa F. Spence, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 25 Calhoun Street, Suite 250 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 277-3700 E-mail: Melissa.Spence@butlersnow.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Collection System ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff McDonald, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that the regional planning agency that operates a flawed toll-collection system along state Route 125 has now been named in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by a driver who says he was wrongly charged after using the roadway. The lawsuit, filed against the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, seeks repayment of what it says were improperly collected fees and penalties going back four years. It also wants a judge to block the agency from collecting those fees going forward. The plaintiff is Brandon Kelsoe, who lives within a half-mile of the tollway and regularly drives it. He says he was wrongly cited for not paying his toll and issued two $40 fines. The suit alleges many other drivers were similarly victimized. "Plaintiff is not the only driver who received false violations and notices of violations while defendant SANDAG's transponder software was malfunctioning," the lawsuit states. Agency officials did not comment on the complaint but said the tolling problems were a "top priority" they were working to resolve, pointing to an "action plan" approved last month. But the lawsuit follows a series of missteps and allegations related to the toll-collection system that have dogged SANDAG for years. The SANDAG board of directors last month agreed to find a new vendor to operate the toll system along the 10-mile stretch of state Route 125 slicing across the South Bay. That decision was made after senior staff acknowledged long-running problems with the software that the contract was unable to correct. They said more than 45,000 drivers could have received incorrect toll billings but that most of those have since been corrected. The new tolling contractor will be a joint venture of Deloitte and A-to-Be, under a nearly $30 million agreement that was reached without the benefit of competitive bidding. Instead, SANDAG staff told the board they reviewed six proposals and recommended the two firms. At the same time, the board agreed to allow original contractor ETAN Tolling Technology and its outside manager HNTB to continue collecting almost $2 million through the transition. SANDAG staff told the board that the two prior contractors, who were paid more than $12 million in recent years to operate and oversee the state Route 125 toll system, needed to remain on the public payroll to ensure a smooth transition to the new operator. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported last year that internal SANDAG records showed that concerns were raised with ETAN and HNTB almost as soon as they were hired to manage and oversee the state Route 125 toll system. Despite those concerns, however, senior agency staff continued to pay the companies. Board members complained at public meetings in December and January that they had not been kept apprised of the contract failures. However, previous audits had repeatedly found SANDAG was failing in its contracting practices and not properly monitoring its vendors. Audits also found the agency relied too heavily on consultants, hampering staff's ability to learn how to oversee contractors themselves. Senior staff also neglected to correct deficiencies that could in theory allow contractors to collude in order to extend their work, auditors found. The lawsuit also comes just three months after SANDAG was sued by a former finance director. In that lawsuit, Lauren Warrem said she was fired in November after raising questions about the ETAN tolling software. Warrem said the software wrongly billed at least 45,000 drivers and she was unable to tell when -- or even if -- the collection errors might be fixed. SANDAG's "motivating reason for terminating her employment was based on her opposition to misrepresenting and/or omitting material financial information in an audit, as well as subsequent disclosure of that information," her suit alleged. In the Kelsoe litigation, SANDAG is accused of failing to disclose problems with the tolling software and actively misrepresenting the extent of the errors. "By their conduct, defendant has engaged in unfair competition and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices," the complaint states. "Defendant's unfair or deceptive acts or practices occurred repeatedly in defendant's trade or business, and were capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the purchasing public," it adds. SANDAG has yet to respond to the filing in court. The case has been assigned to Superior Court Judge Richard S. Whitney, and a case-management conference is scheduled for August. Both cases are being litigated by San Diego attorney Josh Gruenberg, who said he began hearing from many drivers like Kelsoe after news reports of the toll-system failures last fall. The planning agency is a $1.2 billion organization that focuses on regional transportation and other issues that affect San Diego County and cities such as climate change, economic development, housing and clean energy. The 21-member board is composed of elected officials from the county and its 18 cities. SANDAG also is responsible for investing billions of dollars generated by the regional half-cent sales tax that was first approved by voters in 1987 and extended in 2004. Union leaders and other activists spent more than $2 million last year to qualify a November ballot measure that would increase what's called the TransNet tax by a half-cent. [GN] SANSUM CLINIC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rose Extended to Feb. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ROSE, JEREMY LEBMAN, PATRICIA HERVEY, DON DEFRANCIA, and STEPHANIE RAY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SANSUM CLINIC and META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-08180-JFW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order granting stipulation to extend time for filing of motion for class certification. 1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for Class Certification shall be extended from Jan. 29, 2024 to Feb. 28, 2024. Sansum is a non-profit outpatient clinics in California. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pnWXS3 at no extra charge.[CC] SANTANDER CONSUMER: Brief in Opposition to Class Cert Due Feb. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY AND JENNIFER HANSON, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00623-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Parties stipulated as as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before January 19, 2024; 2. The Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before February 19, 2024; and 3. The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before March 11, 2024. 4. The parties request that the Court enter this stipulated briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Santander Consumer provides automotive financing services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hhwyGC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan E. DeLadurantey, Esq. DELADURANTEY LAW OFFICE, LLC 330 S. Executive Drive, Suite 109 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 377-0515 E-mail: nathan@dela-law.com - and - Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com - and - Matthew C. Lein, Esq. LEIN LAW OFFICES LLP 15692 Highway 63 North Hayward, WI 54843 Telephone: (715) 634-4273 Facsimile: (715) 634-5051 E-mail: mlein@leinlawoffices.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph M. Peltz, Esq. Matthew S. Vignali, Esq. BECK, CHAET, BAMBERGER & POLSKY, S.C. 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1085 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 273-4200 Facsimile: (414) 273-7786 E-mail: jpeltz@bcblaw.net mvignali@bcblaw.net - and - Robert J. Brener, Esq. Eliese R. Herzl-Betz, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 S. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 979-1888 E-mail: rjbrener@duanemorris.com erherzlbetz@duanemorris.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Hanson Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY and JENNIFER HANSON, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00623-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order naming the Hansons as class representatives and certifying the case as a class action against Santander Consumer. Santander Consumer provides automotive financing services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZZyVPN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434)328-3100 / (954)763-8660 Facsimile: (434)328-3101 / (954)763-8607 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com - and - Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq. LEIN LAW OFFICES, LLP 15692 Highway 63 North Hayward, WI 54843 Telephone: (715) 634-4273 Facsimile: (715) 634-5051 E-mail: mlein@leinlawoffices.com - and - Nathan E. DeLadurantey, Esq. DELADURANTEY LAW OFFICE, LLC 330 S. Executive Drive, Suite 109 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 377-0515 The Defendant is represented by: Robert J. Brener, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP One Riverfront Plaza 1037 Raymond Boulevard, Suite 1800 Newark, NJ 07102-5429 E-mail: RJBrener@duanemorris.com SARAYA USA: Bid to Stay Discovery in Cohen Class Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALIT COHEN, individually herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SARAYA USA, INC., a Utah Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-08079-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James M. Wicks entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of Defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss. The Court also entered an order that the application to bifurcate discovery is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew if the motion to dismiss is denied. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendant on behalf of herself and others similarly situated for violations of New York's Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, New York General Business Law ("GBL") sections 349 and 350 et seq., alleging Defendant's "labelling, marketing and advertising" of its "Lakanto Monk fruit Sweetener" product line, which contains "golden" and "classic" sugar substitutes and related products, "uniformly involves multiple false and misleading statements, as well as material omissions of fact," that have resulted in injury to Plaintiff and other consumers of the Products. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts Defendant "tricked" Plaintiff and the class "into buying a sugar substitute product and alternative sweetener that is entirely different from what they sought at the time of purchase," and the Products' "zero net carbs" and "zero calorie" labels are false. Saraya is a copacking partner that specializes in the production of high-quality products. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=28223C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP 2219 Main Street, Ste Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 The Defendant is represented by: Jordan Nicole Anderson, Esq. Juliette P. White, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 S. Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SCOUT ENERGY: CCF Seeks to Modify Amended Scheduling Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE COOPER-CLARK FOUNDATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-04048-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), Cooper Clark Foundation moves the Court to modify the Amended Class Certification Stage Scheduling Order. 1. The Court entered a class certification stage scheduling order on Jan. 4, 2023 ("Initial Scheduling Order"). On Oct. 4, 2023, the Court entered an Amended Class Certification Stage Scheduling Order. 2. The Amended Scheduling Order extended the unexpired deadlines in the Initial Scheduling Order by 90 days to allow for depositions of multiple individuals disclosed by Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) and for the parties to prepare their class certification briefing and evidence. 3. The depositions occurred on Nov. 28, 2023, Nov. 30, 2023, and Dec. 7, 2023. 4. The transcripts of the depositions were prepared and made available to the parties shortly before the Christmas holiday. Scout is a private energy investment manager and an upstream oil and gas operator. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BXKwiI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott B. Goodger, Esq. Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Brandon C. Landt, 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: sgoodger@midwest-law.com rsharp@midwest-law.com blandt@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com SECRETLAB US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nugent Extended to April 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN NUGENT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECRETLAB US, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-08944-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order extending case deadlines: -- Close of Fact Discovery: March 25, 2024 -- Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures April 25, 2024 and Reports Due: -- Last Day for Plaintiff to File April 25, 2024 Motion for Class Certification: -- Last Day for Defendant to File May 30, 2024 Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: -- The Defendant's Expert Disclosures May 30, 2024 and Reports Due: -- Last Day for Plaintiff to File June 27, 2024 Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification: -- The Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert June 27, 2024 Reports Due: -- Expert Discovery Cutoff: June 27, 2024 -- Hearing on Motion for Class July 30, 2024 Certification: Secretlab is a Singaporean furniture company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OUkRLg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 593-9095 Facsimile: (213) 785-2899 E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com - and - Joshua Nassir, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: jnassir@treehouselaw.com bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. Christopher R. Ramos, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-779 E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com ramosc@kjclawgroup.com SELECT REHAB: Bid to Amend Complaint Stricken ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger entered an order that: 1. "Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Leave of Court to Amended Complaint to Add or Join an Additional Plaintiff and Class Representative and Motion or Clarification on the Deadline to File for ClasCertification" is stricken; and 2. Plaintiffs will refile a renewed motion for leave of court to amend the complaint as detailed above within 10 days of this order and Select may respond within 7 days. n August 2023, the Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to add a plaintiff—Linda Hovorka—as a named plaintiff and class representative of the therapist class in the Illinois state law claims. (Dkt. 239.) Select filed a response in opposition and Plaintiffs moved to withdraw the motion to amend. The Court terminated Plaintiffs' motion as moot. Soon after, in October 2023, Plaintiffs again moved to amend the second amended complaint, this time asking to remove the Rule 23 class action claims. Linda Hovorka, meanwhile, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging both an FLSA collective action and Rule 23 Illinois Minimum Wage Law class action based on the same facts as those pending before this Court. Select offers outpatient care and rehabilitation programs to patients. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W78jSS at no extra charge.[CC] SHAMROCK TOWING: Anderson Seeks to Notify Truck Drivers Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL G. ANDERSON, ET AL., v. SHAMROCK TOWING, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02517-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): (1) Granting Court-Authorized Notice for the proposed collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class; (2) Implementing a procedure whereby court-authorized notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: "All current and former tow truck drivers who worked for Defendant at any time since August 11, 2020 who participated solely in intrastate travel for a period of four months or longer and were subject to Defendant's Commission Amount and/or Hourly Amount policy;" and (3) Requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential Opt-In Plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential Opt-In Plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at both locations at any time within the past three years. The Defendant is a towing company that predominantly engages in towing services within the state of Ohio, intrastate towing, and focuses mainly on central Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r3oI9Y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com SMG FOOD: Class Certification Bid in Ordono Suit Due July 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ORDONO, v. SMG FOOD & BEVERAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a case-management and pretrial order (jury): -- Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure Feb. 9, 2024 Deadline/Hearing Date Initial disclosures due: -- Updated joint case-management-conference April 11, 2024 Statement: -- Further case-management conference April 18, 2024 -- Class-certification motion filed: July 11, 2024 -- Opposition filed: Aug. 12, 2024 -- Reply filed: Aug, 26, 2024 -- Motions hearing and/or further Sept. 19, 2024 case-management conference: SMG was founded in 1999. The Company line of business includes providing management consulting services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tW1OxZ at no extra charge.[CC] STATE BAR OF GEORGIA: Mignott Appeals Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHA W. MIGNOTT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Marsha W. Mignott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01834-ELR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 23, 2023, the Plaintiff initiated this putative class action case against the Defendants for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants engaged in racial discrimination against the Plaintiff and other African American attorneys who are members of the State Bar of Georgia. On May 11, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Plaintiff moved to oppose. On May 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. On Dec. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend and supplement its response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Dec. 27, 2023, Judge Eleanor L. Ross granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case was dismissed without prejudice. The Court also denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and supplement the Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Finally, the Court directed the Clerk to close the case. The appellate case is captioned Marsha Mignott v. State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-10327, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on January 29, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARSHA W. MIGNOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Marsha Williams Mignott, Esq. THE MIGNOTT LAW GROUP, LLC 4945 Presidents Way Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (770) 621-5499 Defendants-Appellees STATE BAR OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION, INC., et al. are represented by: Patrick Nish Arndt, Esq. NALL & MILLER, LLP 235 PEACHTREE ST NE STE 1500 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (678) 608-1713 STATE FARM: Nichols Must Oppose to Daubert Motion by March 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLLYNN NICHOLS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00016-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to amend the preliminary pretrial order. The Amended Preliminary Pretrial Order dated Nov. 22, 2022, as modified on March 17, 2023, July 17, 2023, Nov. 13, 2023, and Dec. 5, 2023 is further modified as follows. -- The deadline for Defendant to produce March 15, 2024 class certification expert(s) for deposition is: -- The deadline for Plaintiff’s reply in March 29, 2024 support of motion for class certification is: -- The deadline for Plaintiff's opposition March 29, 2024 to Defendant's Daubert motion is: State Farm offers insurance products for autos, motorcycles, sport and leisure vehicles, homes, renters, condos, health, disability, and professional liability. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gI1McQ at no extra charge.[CC] STRATEGIC PROPERTIES: Puga Suit Remanded to Jackson Cir., Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA PUGA and NICOLE EDWARDS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STRATEGIC PROPERTIES, LLC, NEPHRITE FUND I, LLC, and JESSE DAVILA, Case No. 4:23-cv-00774-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Greg Kays entered an order granting motion to remand the case back to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. The parties' briefing raises multiple issues, but Plaintiff's motion can be resolved by ruling on just one, namely, the Defendants' argument that the mediator's statement constitutes "other paper" under 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b). This class-action lawsuit arises from Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants failed to provide safe, sanitary, and habitable rental housing at the Suncrest Apartments (formerly known as Amber Glen Apartments) in Raytown, Missouri. The Third Amended Petition alleges negligence, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). On June 17, 2021, the Plaintiff Elena Puga filed what was then a putative class action lawsuit against Defendants asserting two causes of action, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and violations of the MMPA. Plaintiff sought relief in the form of actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On December 12, 2022, the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Strategic is a real estate brokerage specializing in property management, leasing, development, and listings and acquisitions A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VkgWLO at no extra charge.[CC] TEAM HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Buncombe Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00420-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton L. Corker entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss, motion to strike and motion to stay. Because Buncombe County's other claims survive, the Court retains federal question jurisdiction over the lawsuit. The Court ordinarily would then have to determine whether to exercise its discretion over the County's declaratory judgment claim based on five factors. Although discovery may ultimately show that it will be impracticable to proceed with a class-wide unjust enrichment claim, it is at least possible that common issues will predominate based on the County's common allegation that Defendants had a uniform policy of overbilling and that evidence of that policy is in Defendants' sole . Buncombe County is the administrator, funder, and sponsor of the Buncombe County Government Group Health Plan, through which the County provides health insurance to its Employees Buncombe County alleges that the lop-sided distribution of claims with higher-level CPT codes and the expert's opinion are indicative of an ongoing fraudulent overbilling scheme the TeamHealth organization has been engaged in since at least 2017. Buncombe County contends that the TeamHealth organization actively conceals the overbilling scheme through its business model and structure. The County also seeks to bring these claims as the representative of three proposed classes: -- Unjust Enrichment Class "All payors and their assignees that compensated TeamHealth or an entity billing on its behalf for medical services in the United States or its territories during the appropriate statute of limitations." -- RICO Class "All payors and their assignees that compensated TeamHealth or an entity billing on its behalf for medical treatment in the United States or its territories during the appropriate statute of limitations." -- Declaratory Judgment Class "All payors and their assignees that compensated TeamHealth or an entity billing on its behalf for medical treatment in the United States or its territories at any prior to the filing of the Complaint in this action." These class definitions exclude "United States governmental programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Tricare." Team Health provides emergency department "staffing and administrative services through a network of subsidiaries, affiliates, and nominally independent entities and contractors." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Mlq6a at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA OF DALLAS: April 26 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rhonn Mitchell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Toyota of Dallas, Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Parties file joint motion to modify class certification scheduling order as follows: -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: April 26, 2024 -- The Defendant's Designation of Expert June 21, 2024 Witnesses: -- The Plaintiff’s Designation of Rebuttal July 19, 2024 Experts: -- Close of Class Certification Discovery: Aug. 12, 2024 -- Defendant's Service of its Response to Aug. 26, 2024 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: -- The Plaintiff's Service of his Reply Sept. 26, 2024 to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: -- Submission Date: Oct. 11, 2024 The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on January 22, 2023. The Parties request that the Submission Date and other dates associated with the motion for class certification be extended by 90 days. The case was begun by Rhonn Mitchell on June 6, 2023. Defendant filed its answer on September 11, 2023. On that same date the Court entered its Order Requiring Status and Scheduling Conference. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant placed numerous telephone calls and sent numerous text messages to him after Plaintiff "opted out" of receiving such solicitations. The Plaintiff seeks to certify four classes of similarly situated individuals. The Defendant has answered and denies these claims. Toyota offers Toyota sales and service. A copy of the Parties' dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TcQSuS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com The Defendant is represented by: Frank J. Catalano, Esq. Darrell E. Davis, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600 Frisco, TX 75034 Telephone: (469) 287-3917 Facsimile: (469) 287-3999 E-mail: fcatalano@clarkhill.com ddavis@clarkhill.com TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Bid for Class Certification Due August 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOAGF HOLDCO LP, LAWRENCE HANDORF, PHT HOLDING II LP, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Roberts entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend deadlines. -- The Plaintiffs' class certification expert Aug. 9, 2024 reports and motion for class certification: -- The Defendant's class certification expert Sept. 13, 2024 reports and resistance to class certification: -- Plaintiffs' rebuttal class certification Oct. 11, 2024 expert reports and reply in support of class certification: -- Completion of fact discovery: Oct. 18, 2024 -- Plaintiffs' merits expert reports: Oct. 25, 2024 -- Defendants' merits expert reports: Nov. 22, 2024 -- The Plaintiffs' merits rebuttal expert Dec. 20, 2024 reports: -- Completion of expert discovery: Jan. 17, 2025 -- Dispositive motions: Jan. 31, 2025 -- Trial ready date: July 9, 2025 Transamerica offers life, health, and dental insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mktNAG at no extra charge.[CC] TRUMP CORPORATION: McKoy Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE MCKOY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Catherine McKoy, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Trump Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09936-LGS-SLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action asserting subject matter jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d); federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331; diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c); and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). On July 24, 2019, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part, dismissing the RICO causes of action, the only claims arising under federal law. On Oct. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied. The only remaining claims are the common law and statutory claims of three Plaintiffs arising respectively under the laws of California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania where they respectively reside, with total out-of-pocket losses said to be roughly $7,000. At the Court's invitation, the Defendants moved in substance to have this case litigated in another forum -- either in state court by means of the Court's dismissing and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, or by severing the case into three cases and transferring each case to federal court in each Plaintiff's home state. A hearing was held on the Defendants' motion on Nov. 8, 2023. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs argued against severance and transfer, in part claiming that three separate appellate courts would then have to review the two decisions issued before transfer -- the dismissal of the RICO claims and the denial of class certification. An Order dated Nov. 9, 2023, directed the parties to file further briefing on the issue of appeal after transfer and the impact of that issue on whether to keep, dismiss or transfer the action. On Dec. 29, 2023, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants both filed letter briefs as directed by the Nov. 9, 2023 Order. In their letter, the Defendants stated that they were unable to find any authority resolving the issue of appeal after transfer. The Plaintiffs again argued that transfer would create complications and inconsistencies on appeal. In his ruling, Judge Schofield found that severing and transferring the Plaintiffs' claims to three district courts raises concerns due to the lack of clarity over appellate review. Both parties have indicated a preference for the Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as compared with severance and transfer. Judge Schofield held that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here promotes the values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity. Even though discovery has been completed and certain motions decided, retaining jurisdiction would not serve economy or convenience. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. All pending motions, except the motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 572, 601, 613, 660 and 676, are denied without prejudice. The motions to seal will be addressed by separate order. All court appearances, including trial, were cancelled. The Clerk of Court was further directed to close the case and to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 590, 642 and 659. The appellate case is captioned Catherine McKoy, et al. v. The Trump Corporation, et al., Case No. 24-241, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 29, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CATHERINE MCKOY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Raj K. Patel, Esq. 6850 East 21st Street Indianapolis, IN 46219 TRUMP CORPORATION: Patel Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial ----------------------------------------------------------- Intervenor-Plaintiff RAJ K. PATEL filed an appeal from the District Court's rulings in the lawsuit entitled CATHERINE MCKOY, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE TRUMP CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09936-LGS-SLC, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action asserting subject matter jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d); federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331; diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c); and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). On July 24, 2019, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part, dismissing the RICO causes of action, the only claims arising under federal law. On Oct. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied. The only remaining claims are the common law and statutory claims of three Plaintiffs arising respectively under the laws of California, Maryland and Pennsylvania where they respectively reside, with total out-of-pocket losses said to be roughly $7,000. At the Court's invitation, the Defendants moved in substance to have this case litigated in another forum -- either in state court by means of the Court's dismissing and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, or by severing the case into three cases and transferring each case to federal court in each Plaintiff's home state. A hearing was held on the Defendants' motion on Nov. 8, 2023. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs argued against severance and transfer, in part claiming that three separate appellate courts would then have to review the two decisions issued before transfer -- the dismissal of the RICO claims and the denial of class certification. An Order dated Nov. 9, 2023, directed the parties to file further briefing on the issue of appeal after transfer and the impact of that issue on whether to keep, dismiss or transfer the action. On Dec. 29, 2023, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants both filed letter briefs as directed by the Nov. 9, 2023 Order. In their letter, the Defendants stated that they were unable to find any authority resolving the issue of appeal after transfer. The Plaintiffs again argued that transfer would create complications and inconsistencies on appeal. On Jan. 11, 2024, Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the Southern District of New York dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims. Judge Schofield found that severing and transferring the Plaintiffs' claims to three district courts raises concerns due to the lack of clarity over appellate review. Both parties have indicated a preference for the Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as compared with severance and transfer. Judge Schofield held that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here promotes the values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity. Even though discovery has been completed and certain motions decided, retaining jurisdiction would not serve economy or convenience. On Jan. 11, the Plaintiffs also filed a motion for David Berman to withdraw as attorney which the Court granted on Jan. 12 through a Memo Endorsed Order signed by Judge Schofield. On Jan. 12, Movant-Intervenor Patel filed a motion for reconsideration on dismissal order entered by the Court. On Jan. 17, Judge Schofield signed a Memo Endorsement Order denying the said motion for reconsideration. The appellate case is captioned as MCKOY et al., Plaintiff v. THE TRUMP CORP. et al., Defendant, Case No. 24-181, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Jan. 22, 2024.[BN] UNITED CONCORDIA: Lyngass Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. UNITED CONCORDIA COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-11604-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 defined as follows: All persons or entities sent one or more facsimiles from United Concordia Companies, Inc. on October 6-8, 2020, March 2-3, 2021, May 10-11, 2021, or June 22, 2021, regarding property, goods, or services available to network providers from Prophy Magic, DRNA, GradFin, or Steri Check. UCCI is excluded from the class. The Plaintiff alleges that UCCI violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), by sending four nearly identical advertisements for third-party property, goods, or services to Plaintiff and other network dentists. Dr. Brian J. Lyngaas is a licensed dentist practicing in Livonia, Michigan through his eponymous corporation. UCCI is in the dental insurance business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OXRF9m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC 6550 Lakeshore Street West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Telephone: (248) 562-1320 Facsimile: (888) 769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Robert M. Hatch, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC 203 N. LaSalle St. Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Mitchell Due July 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley, Case No. 1:23-cv-00060 (E.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order granting an extension of the briefing schedule as follows: -- Non-Expert Discovery re Class April 25, 2024 Certification due by: -- Designation of Expert Witnesses May 15, 2024 re Class Certification due by: -- Rebuttal Designation of Expert May 13, 2024 Witnesses re Class Certification due by: -- Expert Discovery re Class July 11, 2024 Certification due by: -- Class Certification Motion July 19, 2024 filing deadline set for: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. United Health is a private non-profit organization, established from a grass root movement by people trying to improve access to healthcare in their rural communities in California's Central Valley.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Malone Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification. -- First, the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). -- The proposed class is defined as follows: "All non-exempt hourly employees who were employed by UPS at a Plissken PA Facility at any time since August 16, 2018." -- Second, the Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint his counsel to serve as "Class Counsel." -- Third, Plaintiff asks the Court to approve both (i) the "Notice of Class Action Lawsuit" form and (ii) the class notice protocols and procedures detailed at in Section III.C of the accompanying brief and paragraph 4 of the accompanying Proposed Order. United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EU80Sx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3679 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com daaron@winebrakelaw.com UNITED SERVICES: Leavitt Class Action Tossed -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLAN M. LEAVITT, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and THE COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-11341-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order: -- Granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss; and -- Denying the Plaintiff's Motions for Sanctions against the Defendants GEICO and USAA; and -- Granting the Defendants GEICO and USAA's Motions for Sanctions. USAA and GEICO shall submit affidavits and other supporting material to support the amount of attorneys' fees and costs sought within 14 days of the entry of this order. United Services is an American financial services company providing insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the military, veterans, and their families. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L2tRNB at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Volkova Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anastasiia Volkova, for herself and all others similarly situated, v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Department of Homeland Security, and United States of America, Case No. 1:23-cv-07565-FB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All individuals or entities who paid the $410 filing fee for applications on Form I-765 for initial employment authorization documents filed by Ukrainian parolees who were entitled to "other benefits available to refugees" under the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-128 section 401." The Plaintiff Volkova also seeks to be appointed as class representative and for appointment of the law firms Motley Rice LLC, Bless Litigation LLC, Kuck Baxter LLC, Joseph & Hall, P.C., Siskind Susser PC, and Sarraf Gentile LLP as class counsel. Ms. Volkova is a Ukrainian humanitarian parolee who brought this class action against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States Department of Homeland Security, and the United States of America under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Little Tucker Act. For the reasons explained in Plaintiff’s accompanying USCIS oversees immigration to the United States and approves (or denies) immigrant petitions, and more. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WjRbKl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Narwold, Esq. Meghan S. B. Oliver, Esq. Charlotte E. Loper, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1676 Facsimile: (860) 882-1682 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com moliver@motleyrice.com cloper@motleyrice.com - and - Joseph Gentile, Esq. Ronen Sarraf, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 10 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516)-699-8890 Facsimile: (516)-699-8968 E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com ronen@sarrafgentile.com - and - Aaron C. Hall, Esq. JOSEPH & HALL, PC 12203 E. Second Ave. Aurora, CO 80011 Telephone: (303) 297-9171 Facsimile: (303) 733-4188 E-mail: aaron@immigrationissues.com - and - Gregory Siskind, Esq. SISKIND SUSSER, PC 1028 Oakhaven Road Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 682-6455 E-mail: gsiskind@visalaw.com - and - Jesse M. Bless, Esq. BLESS LITIGATION LLC 6 Vineyard Lane Georgetown, MA 01833 Telephone: (781)-704-3897 E-mail: jesse@blesslitigation.com - and - Charles H. Kuck, Esq. KUCK BAXTER LLC 364 Northridge Rd., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404)-949-8154 Facsimile: (404)-816-8615 E-mail: ckuck@immigration.net UNIVERSAL RECOVERY: March 21 Status Conference Date Unchanged ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loa v. Universal Recovery Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00153 (E.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 31, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for the Plaintiff and the putative class members to file a class certification motion. -- The Court also set a motion hearing for January 24, 2024, at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. -- Because the Plaintiff and the putative class members have not filed a class certification motion, the hearing is vacated. -- The status conference set for March 21, 2024, remains unchanged. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Universal Recovery offers possible debt recovery services and legal support for the recovery of their debts.[CC] UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Chappell Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Hospitals Health Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Derek T. Chappell, Linda Chappell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. University Hospitals Health Systems, Inc., University Hospitals Health Systems, Inc. Benefits Administrative Committee, Case No. 1:24-cv-00184-DAR (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 30, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits. University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center -- https://www.uhhospitals.org/ -- is a large not-for-profit academic medical complex in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Downie, Esq. 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza, Ste. 104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: (440) 973-9000 Fax: (440) 210-4610 Email: tom@chagrinlaw.com - and - Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 308-1522 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com US FERTILITY: Proposes $5.75-Mil. Settlement in Breach Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder, writing for The HIPAA Journal, reports that US Fertility LLC, the operator of more than 100 fertility clinics across the United States, has proposed a $5.75 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that was filed in response to a data breach that exposed the data of around 900,000 patients. U.S. Fertility announced in November 2020 that hackers had gained access to its network and installed malware (ransomware) that rendered certain systems inaccessible. The breach was detected on September 14, 2020; however, the hackers first gained access to the network on August 12, 2020. Before encrypting files, the hackers exfiltrated sensitive patient data including names, addresses, dates of birth, MPI numbers, Social Security numbers, medical information, and financial information. A class action lawsuit was filed that alleged U.S. Fertility was negligent by failing to implement reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect highly sensitive patient data from unauthorized access. Had those measures been implemented, the breach could have been prevented or its severity would have been severely reduced. U.S. Fertility maintains there was no wrongdoing but decided to settle the lawsuit. Under the settlement terms, all class members are entitled to a $50 cash payment. Class members whose data was stolen from a California clinic will be entitled to claim an additional cash payment of $200. Claims may also be submitted for up to 4 hours of lost time at $25 per hour, and unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses can be claimed and will be paid up to a maximum of $15,000 per claimant. Claims for reimbursement of losses must be supported by receipts, account statements, IRS documents, police reports, FTC reports, professional invoices, and other documentation. The cash payments may be reduced and paid pro-rata depending on the number of claims submitted. Individuals who wish to object to the settlement or exclude themselves have until February 20, 2024, to do so. All claims must be submitted by March 19, 2024. The final settlement hearing has been scheduled for April 18, 2024. [GN] VAXART INC: Parties Seek to Depose Class Certification Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding the deposition of the lead Plaintiff Wei Haung and Defendants' class certification opposition. 1. The Armistice Defendants shall be granted leave to take Lead Plaintiff Huang's deposition in person after his return to the United States on Feb. 28, 2024, at the Armistice Defendants' counsel's office in Los Angeles, California, or at any other mutually agreed time or location up through March 1, 2024. 2. The time limit for the deposition set forth in the Federal Rules shall be extended to ten hours in the case of Lead Plaintiff Huang's deposition only. The Parties may allocate the hours among two days by mutual agreement, without court approval. Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant vaccines administered using temperature-stable tablets that can be stored and shipped without refrigeration, eliminating the need for needle injection. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jwU6vy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Raffi Melanson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com raffim@hbsslaw.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. William C. Fredericks, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com wfredericks@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (310) 388-0192 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal R. Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Sina Safvati, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com ssafvati@akingump.com VAXART INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply Brief by March 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. (VAXART, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order that: 1. The Armistice Defendants shall be granted leave to take Lead Plaintiff Huang's deposition in person after his return to the United States on February 28, 2024, at the Armistice Defendants' counsel's office in Los Angeles, California, or at any other mutually agreed time or location up through March 1, 2024. 2. The time limit for the deposition set forth in the Federal Rules shall be extended to 10 hours in the case of Lead Plaintiff Huang's deposition only. 3. The Armistice Defendants shall have leave to file a supplemental brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on issues solely regarding Lead Plaintiff Huang. 4. Plaintiffs shall still file their reply brief in support of class certification by March 7, 2024. Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant vaccines administered using temperature-stable tablets. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HHOyT8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Raffi Melanson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com raffim@hbsslaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 303-1964 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. William C. Fredericks, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com wfredericks@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal R. Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Sina Safvati, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com ssafvati@akingump.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Settlement in Dack Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY DACK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; AND VOLKSWAGEN, AG, A FOREIGN CORPORATION; Case No. 4:20-cv-00615-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: "All persons and entities who purchased or leased, in the United States or Puerto Rico, the following model year vehicles equipped with an automatic emergency braking system that are enumerated in a VIN list attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 4, which were imported and distributed by VWGoA for sale or lease in the United States or Puerto Rico: certain model year 2019-2023 Volkswagen Arteon; model year 2018-2023 Volkswagen Atlas; model year 2020-2023 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport; model year 2016-2017 Volkswagen CC; model year 2016-2021 Volkswagen Golf; model year 2016-2019 and 2022-2023 Volkswagen Golf R; model year 2016-2019 Volkswagen Golf Sportwagen; model year 2016-2023 Volkswagen GTI; model year 2016-2019 Volkswagen e-Golf; model year 2021-2023 Volkswagen ID.4; model year 2016-2023 Volkswagen Jetta; model year 2016-2022 Volkswagen Passat; model year 2022-2023 Volkswagen Taos; model year 2018-2023 Volkswagen Tiguan; model year 2015- 2017 Volkswagen Touareg; model year 2015-2020 and 2022-2023 Audi A3; model year 2019-2023 Audi Q3; model year 2013-2023 Audi A4; model year 2013-2023 Audi A5; model year 2013-2023 Audi Q5; model year 2012-2023 Audi A6; model year 2012-2023 Audi A7; model year 2011-2023 Audi A8; model year 2017-2023 Audi Q7; model year 2019- 2023 Audi Q8; model year 2019-2023 Audi e-tron; model year 2022- 2023 Audi e-tron GT; and model year 2022-2023 Audi Q4 e-tron ("Settlement Class")." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) all Judges who have presided over the Action and their spouses; (b) all current employees, officers, directors, agents and representatives of Defendant, and their family members; (c) any affiliate, parent or subsidiary of Defendant and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (d) anyone acting as a used car dealer; (e) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle for the purpose of commercial resale; (f) anyone who purchased a Settlement Class Vehicle with salvaged title and/or any insurance company who acquired a Settlement Class Vehicle as a result of a total loss; (g) any insurer of a Settlement Class Vehicle; (h) issuers of extended vehicle warranties and service contracts; (i) any Settlement Class Member who, prior to the date of the Settlement Agreement, settled with and released Defendant or any Released Parties from any Released Claims; and (j) any Settlement Class Member who files a timely and proper Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class. -- The Court preliminarily appoints Bursor & Fisher, Walsh PLLC, Sauder Schelkopf LLC; Law Office of Adam R. Gonnelli, L.L.C.; Berger Montague, PC; and Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Emily Dack, Kim HensleyHauser, Neeraj Sharma, Stephan Moonesar, Matthew May, Omar Oweis, Marcos Pieras, and Linda Christian as Settlement Class Representatives. -- The Court preliminarily appoints Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement Claim Administrator. Volkswagen is the North American operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of Germany. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SCUHd5 at no extra charge.[CC] VOLTA INC: Chau Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes of Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY CHAU; HONG ZHU; JAN SOMERS; JESSICA SETO; KENNETH HEYEN; KIERSTEN STANTON; LEAH SCHUNK; MAUREEN MCBIRNEY; MASAYA TAKAHASHI; SAUL TOOLEY; TALON JONES; TEENA KIRCHNER; and ZACHARY MONDO, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated; v. VOLTA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; VOLTA CHARGING INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-07247-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The Plaintiff moves the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("F.R.C.P.") 23(a) and (b)(3) for certification of the following classes: -- Federal WARN Act Class "All current and/or prior employees of Defendants who were laid off as of September 30, 2022, and those who were furloughed as of October 21, 2022, and October 31, 2022;" -- California WARN Act Class "All current and/or prior employees of Defendants residing in California and who were laid off as of September 30, 2022, and those who were furloughed as of October 21, 2022 and October 31, 2022." The Plaintiffs also move to appoint themselves as class representatives and to appoint the Infinity Law Group LLP and Cera LLP as class counsel pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23(g). The Plaintiffs have been diligent in pursuing the claims for nearly a year and a half of litigation. Volta is in the business of building and installing charging stations for electric vehicles and placing those charging stations at locations throughout the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tbBP3I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ilya Filmus, Esq. Paul K. Pfeilschiefter, Esq. INFINITY LAW GROUP LLP 1020 Aileen Street Lafayette, CA 94549 Telephone: (925) 732-1188 Facsimile: (925) 732-1189 E-mail: ifilmus@infinitylawca.com ppfeilschiefter@infinitylawca.com - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas C. Bright, Esq. CERA LLP 201 California Street, Suite 1240 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com tbright@cerallp.com WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Allowed Leave to File Docs in Class Sui ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENALE NIELSEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., Inc., a Florida Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-02055-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File Certain Documents in Support of Motion to Certify Class Action Under Seal. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are hereby granted leave to file the following documents under seal: 1. An unredacted version of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion For Class Certification; 2. An unredacted version of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities with proposed redactions highlighted in yellow; 3. An unredacted version of the Declaration of Nickolas J. Hagman; 4. Exhibit 5 to the Hagman Declaration; 5. Exhibit 6 to the Hagman Declaration; 6. Exhibit 7 to the Hagman Declaration; 7. Exhibit 8 to the Hagman Declaration; 8. Exhibit 9 to the Hagman Declaration; 9. Exhibit 10 to the Hagman Declaration); 10. Exhibit 11 to the Hagman Declaration; 11. Exhibit 12 to the Hagman Declaration; 12. Exhibit 13 to the Hagman Declaration; 13. Exhibit 14 to the Hagman Declaration; 14. Exhibit 15 to the Hagman Declaration; 15. Exhibit 17 to the Hagman Declaration; 16. Exhibit 18 to the Hagman Declaration; 17. Exhibit 19 to the Hagman Declaration; 18. Exhibit 21 to the Hagman Declaration; and 19. Exhibit 24 to the Hagman Declaration; Walt Disney was founded in 1964. The Company's line of business includes the operating of amusement parks and kids parks. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TIUiME at no extra charge.[CC] WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Dishwashers ------------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group on Feb. 6 disclosed that a proposed national class action has been commenced against Whirlpool and Home Depot to recover compensation for (allegedly) defective Kitchen Aid and Whirlpool dishwashers for model 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. The claim alleges the dishwashers are defective because of a part which 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. The costs to repair the dishwasher can exceed its market value causing owners to replace the dishwasher long before its normal operating life expectancy. If you have experienced a leaky dishwasher, please register with Charney Lawyers PC at https://www.charneylawyers.com/whirlpool-class-action or by sending an email to kgalts@charneylawyers.com. The affected brands and models are as follows: 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 [GN] WK KELLOGG COMPANY: Maldonado Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Damaso Maldonado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated V. WK KELLOGG COMPANY and KELLANOVA, d/b/a KELLOGG'S, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:24-cv-00090 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 30, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $24.11. In addition to the base rate of pay, Kellogg's incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into their payment structure. For example, Kellogg's promised their hourly employees shift differential pay and other forms of remuneration. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Kellogg's, on occasions where he worked the second and/or third shift, he earned a shift differential. As non-exempt employees, Kellogg's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. The Defendants failed to incorporate any shift differentials into their hourly employees' regular hourly rate calculation, resulting in prima facie violations of the FLSA. Plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not include Defendants' shift differentials as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Kellogg's from October 2022 through September 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Kellogg Company was founded in 1906 and became a world leader in the manufacture and marketing of well-known cereals, snacks, and convenience foods, and operating under the famous brand name of "Kellogg's."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC (KALAMAZOO) 141 E Michigan Ave., Ste. 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Fax: (269) 250-7503 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC (SOUTHFIELD) One Towne Sq., Ste. 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com - and – Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMEDLAWGROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com XPONENTIAL FITNESS: ids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, on Feb. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Xponential Fitness, Inc. ("Xponential" or the "Company") (NYSE: XPOF) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Xponential publicly traded Class A common stock between July 26, 2021 and December 7, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 9, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Xponential class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Xponential had permanently closed at least 30 stores; (ii) Xponential's reported same-store sales ("SSS") and average unit volume ("AUV") metrics had been misstated by excluding underperforming stores; (iii) 8 out of 10 Xponential brands were losing money monthly; (iv) over 50% of Xponential studios did not make a positive financial return; (v) over 60% of Xponential's revenue was one-time and non-recurring; (vi) more than 100 of Xponential's franchises were for sale at a price that is at least 75% less than their initial cost; (vii) Xponential had misled many of its franchisees into opening franchises by misrepresenting the financial profile and profitability of its studios, as well as the expected rate of return for new studio openings; and (viii) many Xponential franchisees were substantially in debt, suffering high attrition rates and running non-viable studios that had no realistic path to profitability. On June 26, 2023, Fuzzy Panda published a report on Xponential, which, among other things, represented that: (i) Xponential CEO, defendant Anthony Geisler, has had a long history of misleading investors; (ii) Xponential has issued a series of misleading statements about its store closures and the overall financial health of its franchisee base; (iii) more than 50% of Xponential's studios never make a positive financial return; (iv) more than 100 of Xponential's franchises are for sale at a price that is at least 75% less than their initial cost; (v) 8 out of 10 Xponential brands are losing money monthly; (vi) Xponential's publicly reported SSS and AUV metrics misleadingly exclude underperforming stores; (vii) over 60% of Xponential's revenue is one-time and non-recurring; and (viii) at least 30 Xponential stores had been permanently closed. On this news, the price of Xponential common stock fell more than 37%. Then, on December 7, 2023, Businessweek published an article titled "Club Pilates, Pure Barre Owners Say Xponential Left Them Bankrupt" which stated that Businessweek had interviewed dozens of former business partners, employees, and franchisees of Xponential who revealed that Xponential misled many franchisees into a "financial nightmare." The article further stated defendant Geisler "has a track record of combative management, deploying growth-at-all-costs tactics and unleashing aggressive reprisals against anyone who gets in his way." On this news, the price of Xponential common stock fell more than 26% over two trading days. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Xponential shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] ZUFFA LLC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment vs Le ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUNG LE, NATHAN QUARRY, JON FITCH, BRANDON VERRA, LUIS JAVIER VASQUEZ, and KYLE KINGSBURY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC D/B/A ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP AND ZUFFA, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard F. Boulware, II entered an order that Defendant Zuffa, LLC's motion for summary judgment is denied with prejudice. The Court further ordered that: -- The Plaintiffs' motion to strike is granted in part as regards the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr. Hal J. Singer, Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Andrew Zimbalist, and the December 1, 2023, Declaration of Dr. Gregory K. Leonard, which the Clerk of Court is instructed to strike from the docket. The motion is denied as regards the remaining Motion to Exclude. -- A ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Guy A. Davis is deferred. -- A hearing regarding the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Guy A. Davis is set for Jan. 19, 2024. -- The Joint Stipulated Proposed Pre-Trial Schedule is denied without prejudice to the final dates being set at the forthcoming hearing on January 19, 2024. Zuffa was an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed martial arts. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EdAcul at no extra charge.[CC] [*] Baker Sterchi Cowden Attorney Discusses GIPA Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Odom, Esq., of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that a fresh wave of litigation has recently emerged in Illinois commonly known by the four-letter acronym GIPA—the Genetic Information Privacy Act. In a five-part series of posts, we examine GIPA's background, key provisions of the Act, the remedies available under GIPA, certain types of GIPA cases being filed, and considerations for companies regarding GIPA litigation. Baker Sterchi is dedicating this blog to a discussion of the Genetic Information Privacy Act ('GIPA"). In a five-part series of posts, we examine GIPA's background, key provisions of the Act, the remedies available under GIPA, certain types of GIPA cases being filed, and considerations for companies regarding GIPA litigation. Today, we examine the background of GIPA: As discussed in prior Baker Sterchi blog posts, including here, here, and here, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") has dominated the Illinois class action landscape for several years. There are no signs of BIPA litigation slowing down. Rather, five times as many BIPA lawsuits were filed in 2022 compared to 2018, and over 400 BIPA lawsuits were filed in Illinois in 2023. There is another four-letter statute, however, of which companies doing business in Illinois should be aware: GIPA. GIPA, or the Genetic Information Privacy Act, was enacted in 1998. GIPA was amended in 2008, in part, to align with certain provisions of the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. According to the legislative intent section of GIPA, many members of the public were deterred from seeking genetic testing because of fear that test results would be disclosed without consent in a manner not permitted by law or would be used in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, the legislature stated an intent that disclosure of genetic information required under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPPA") be performed in accordance with HIPPA's "minimum necessary standard." Until recently, few GIPA lawsuits were filed. According to our research, only two GIPA class action lawsuits were filed in 2021, and zero were filed in 2022. By contrast, 30 GIPA class action lawsuits were filed in 2023. What led to this surge in filings? Likely several factors, including the similarity of the right of action and remedy provisions in GIPA and BIPA, which we will further discuss later. Another likely factor is the recent approval of a class and subclass of plaintiffs in a GIPA suit by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On August 3, 2023, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification in a case alleging that Sequencing, LLC violated GIPA by disclosing its customers' genetic information to unknown third-party developers without first obtaining those customers' consent. Melvin v. Sequencing, LLC, 344 F.R.D. 231 (N.D. Ill. 2023). [GN] [*] U.S. Manufacturers Seek Dismissal of Hair Relaxer MDL Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- aboutlawsuits.com reports that the manufacturers of Dark & Lovely, Just for Me, Optimum and other popular chemical straighteners have filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated hair relaxer class action lawsuit, which seeks economic damages for all consumers who claim they were unwittingly exposed to a risk of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries, even if they have not been diagnosed with any specific health problems. The motion comes in response to a consolidated complaint filed by plaintiffs in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), which also includes thousands of individual hair relaxer uterine cancer lawsuits, ovarian cancer lawsuits and uterine fibroid lawsuits brought by women who claim they developed devastating injuries caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals in the products. However, the consumer class action seeks economic damages for all purchasers of the toxic hair relaxers. The litigation emerged late last year, following the publication of a study that highlighted a link between hair relaxers and uterine cancer, finding that women who regularly used the products face a 156% increased risk compared to women who did not relax their hair. Lawsuits now seek financial compensation for former users, indicating that manufacturers knew or should have known about the hair relaxer cancer risk, yet placed their desire for profits before the health and safety of women. Given common questions of fact and law raised in hair relaxer lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established coordinated pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois under U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in January 2023, for coordinated discovery and a series of early trial dates to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that will apply to a large number of claims. Defendants Seek to Dismiss Hair Relaxer Class Action Lawsuit On February 5, defendants filed a motion to dismiss hair relaxer class action lawsuits (PDF), claiming that damages of economic harm are preempted by federal law. They also argue that plaintiffs have not filed sufficient claim of injury, and that they lack standing to file a nationwide class action. "Plaintiffs are residents of only seventeen different states, yet they assert fraud, consumer protection, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims on behalf of residents of the other thirty-three states, as well as U.S. territories," the motion states. "Similarly, Plaintiffs seeking medical monitoring costs are residents of just six states, but assert products liability claims on behalf of individuals residing in thirteen jurisdictions." Even if the motion is successful, it will still leave the manufacturers facing thousands of individual hair relaxer injury lawsuits filed nationwide. February 2024 Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Update Judge Rowland indicated early in the litigation that the court will establish a bellwether process, where a small group of representative lawsuits involving different products and specific injuries will be prepared for early trial dates, which will help the parties weigh the strengths and weaknesses of their positions and promote settlement negotiations. In November, parties proposed competing draft hair relaxer lawsuit bellwether trial plans, which outlined a process for selecting potential bellwether cases and putting them through case-specific discovery in preparation for early trial dates. However, the parties have been unable to agree on several key points regarding the bellwether selections, as well as when the first trials should begin, and how big a factor general causation should play in the early phases of the litigation. While the outcome of these test trials will not have any impact on other Dark & Lovely lawsuits, Just for Me lawsuits and claims filed against the manufacturers of other products, the average amounts of jury awards may promote potential hair relaxer settlements that could avoid the need for thousands of individual claims to go to trial nationwide. Following coordinated discovery in the MDL and any early bellwether trials, if the parties fail to negotiate hair relaxer settlements for individuals diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine fibroids and other complications, Judge Rowland may later remand each individual lawsuit directly filed in the MDL back to the U.S. District Court where it would have originated for a separate trial. [GN] [*] U.S. Tyre Manufacturers Face Suit Over Antitrust Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- tyrepress.com reports that days after the European Commission announced that it is investigating a number of leading tyre manufacturers in relation to allegations of price-fixing, the same companies have become the subject of a similar class-action lawsuit in the USA. The class action relates to ". . . purchases of tyres within four years prior to the filing" – which clearly relates to a potentially enormous number of tyres. The case basically alleges that the named tyremakers colluded to raise and sustain higher tyre prices and that such action was at least partly facilitated via public communications. The named tyremakers have all already denied price fixing and stated their compliance with the law and their cooperation with investigations in relation the EC investigation.[GN] [] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference --------------------------------------------------------------- Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference. Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action industry for this one-day event. CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on Monday, May 6, 2024. To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Reports $412MM Litigation Reserve --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. has asbestos litigation reserve of $412 million as of December 31, 2023, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yQVVZ0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has $788MM Asbestos-Related Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dow Inc. reported asbestos-related non-current liabilities of $788 million at December 31, 2023, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cAO6n1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $417MM Asbestos Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc has recorded total asbestos-related liabilities of $417 million at December 31, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. "The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption may impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DxI0Qj ********* 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 ***