/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240509.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 9, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 94
Headlines
175-33 HORACE: Ramirez Files Civil Rights Violations in E.D.N.Y.
2428392 INC: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Ingrao Files Personal Property Claims in E.D. Pa.
AEDES DE VENUSTAS: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action Over False Statements
AKIMA GLOBAL: Yeend Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Class Cert Bid Extended to May 20
ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS: Christian Files Personal Injury Suit in Ohio
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Illegal Employee Data Sharing
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Withholds Insurers' Future Labor, Stanley Claims
AMERICAN LIFE: Hosseini Files Contract Suit in C.D. California
AMERICAN PUBLISHING: Files Class Action Over Key Bridge Collapse
ANGELICA CORPORATION: Smith Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
APPLE INC: Bodenburg Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
ARISE VIRTUAL: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Opposition Briefing
AUTODESK INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud
AYLO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
BANK OF AMERICA: Oral Argument on Renewed Bid for Remand Tossed
BANNER LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Illinois GIPA Violation
BARILLA AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing in Sinatro Continued to May 23
BARILLA AMERICA: Diaz Sues Over Pasta Sauces "No Preservative" Ads
BBBB BONDING: Benton Suit Moved to the E.D. California
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action
BONNIE PLANTS: Collects Data Without Consent, Engelkens Alleges
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
CATALENT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Novo Holdings
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Matlick Files Suit in D. New Jersey
COINBASE GLOBAL: Aceves Sues Over Sale of Crypto Currency
COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Securities Claims Class Action
CONCORD SERVICING: Faces Hartshorn FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
EMERGE CANADA: Proposed ETF Class Action Lawsuit Discontinued
EMPIRE AUTO: Misner Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
EVENT WORKFORCE: Hilbert Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
EVOLV TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Product Effectiveness
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Humphrey Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
FUSION SPONSOR LLC: Martel Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
GENERAL MOTORS: Block Sues Over Tracking of Driving Behavior Data
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Sharing
GENERAL MOTORS: King Sues Over Erroneous Reports
GLOBAL CORD: Faces Class Action Over Conflicted Transactions
GLOBAL K9: Faces Colindres Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
GREAT LAKES: Faces Anderson Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
HEY FAVOR: Ct. Sets Hearing on Bid to Stay Consideration
HIWASSEE ACRES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says
HPG PIZZA: Seeks to Strike Opperman's Declaration in Mighell
INTRINSIC TRADING: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
JOYOUS PBC: Faces Suit Over Privacy Rights Violations
KLUGEX INC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
LAKE CONSUMER: Pineda Files Real Property Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
LEMONADE INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Hilbert Suit Says
LENS.COM INC: Martin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
LENS.COM INC: Nail Suit Removed to C.D. California
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations
LUCKY BRANDS: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
MATCH GROUP: Mendoza Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MATCH GROUP: Whitman Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MAY DYNASTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Han Suit Alleges
MDL 3100: Panel Denies Transfer of 9 Suits Due to Settlement
MDL 3101: 10 Suits Consolidated in Baby Food Contamination Row
MDL 3102: Four Suits Consolidated in Tithe Mismanagement Row
MDL 3103: Six Suits Transferred to N.D. W. Va.
MEDTORQUE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hess Alleges
MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.5MM
OUTFOX HOSPITALITY: Moore Sues Over WARN Act Violation
PNC BANK: Spencer Sues Over Unlawful Junk Fees
PREMIUM APPAREL: Dalton Sues Over ADA Violations in D. Minnesota
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Franco Files Contract Suit in M.D.N.C.
RAWLINGS COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Settlement Proceeds
RAYCEN RAINES: Blalock Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Zabransky Sues Over Breach of Contract
SANDOZ CANADA: Opioids Class Suit Enters Phase Two of Certification
SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA JV: Arciga Suit Moved to C.D. California
SP 74 AW CALIFORNIA: United African-Asian Sues Over ADA Violation
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Wiretapping Class Action Suit
THOMAS J. VILSACK: Provost Files Suit in D. Columbia
TORRID LLC: Faces Class Action Over False Sale Prices Online
TOWNEBANK: Pines Horse Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Goldstein FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TRUEACCORD CORP: Ryder Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
UBER EATS: Faces Class Suit in Las Vegas Over Imposter Restaurants
VIRGINIA FARM: Haynes Files Personal Property Suit in E.D. Va.
WALMART INC: Argenzio Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Product
WELLS FARGO: Beloff Files Personal Property Suit in N.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Oberly Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California
WHOLE FOODS: Yount Sues Over Omitted Wage Scale in Job Postings
*********
175-33 HORACE: Ramirez Files Civil Rights Violations in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 175-33 Horace Harding
Realty Corp. The case is captioned as EDWIN RAMIREZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 175-33 HORACE
HARDING REALTY CORP., Case No. 2:24-cv-01767-PKC-SIL (E.D.N.Y.,
March 10, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
175-33 Horace Harding Realty Corp. is a real estate agency in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
2501 Jody Court
North Bellmore, NY 11710
Telephone: (516) 783-9662
Facsimile: (646) 435-4376
Email: james@civilrightsny.com
2428392 INC: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREW WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 2428392, INC., Case No. 23-09310-TT,
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on March 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01073-MMB to the proceeding.
The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
2428392, Inc. is an American chain of entertainment retail stores
headquartered in Albany, New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Rex T. Reeves, Esq.
THE KARLIN LAW FIRM LLP
13522 Newport Ave., Suite 201
Tustin, CA 92780
Telephone: (714) 731-3283
Email: staff@karlinlaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Oropallo, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON, LLP
Barclay Damon Tower
125 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Telephone: (315) 425-2831
Facsimile: (315) 703-7367
Email: moropallo@barclaydamon.com
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Ingrao Files Personal Property Claims in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AddShoppers, Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as AMELIA INGRAO, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADDSHOPPERS,
INC. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01022-JHS (E.D. Pa., March 8, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' personal property
violations.
AddShoppers, Inc. is a barber shop in Huntersville, North Carolina.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
AEDES DE VENUSTAS: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aedes De Venustas,
Inc. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Aedes De Venustas, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02399-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aedes de Venustas -- https://www.aedes.com/ -- is a niche perfume
store (also called Aedes Perfumery) and fragrance line.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action Over False Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of Akero
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKRO) common stock between September
13, 2022 and October 9, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Captioned Klobus v. Akero Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-02534
(N.D. Cal.), the Akero class action lawsuit charges Akero and
certain of its top executive officers with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Akero class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-akero-therapeutics-inc-class-action-lawsuit-akro.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Akero class action
lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 25, 2024.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Akero is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on advancing its lead product candidate
efruxifermin ("EFX") to provide a new treatment for patients with
nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"), a serious liver disease.
During the Class Period, Akero claimed to be evaluating EFX in two
Phase 2 clinical trials in patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH: (i)
Akero's "HARMONY" trial that tested EFX in pre-cirrhotic NASH
patients; and (ii) Akero's "SYMMETRY" trial that purportedly tested
EFX in patients with NASH-induced cirrhosis.
The Akero class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that:
(i) approximately 20% of the patients enrolled in the SYMMETRY
study had cryptogenic cirrhosis and did not have definitive NASH at
baseline;
(ii) the cryptogenic cirrhotic patients included in the
SYMMETRY study did not have biopsy-proven compensated cirrhosis due
to definitive NASH;
(iii) the results from the cryptogenic cirrhosis patients were
to be excluded from the calculation of the NASH resolution
secondary endpoints;
(iv) Akero had introduced a confounding factor into the
SYMMETRY study's design, materially influencing the study's
potential results and increasing the risks that the study would
fail to meet its primary endpoint;
(v) the SYMMETRY study did not align with U.S. Food & Drug
Administration guidance for testing a drug in treating NASH
cirrhotics because Akero had not ruled out potential causes of each
patient's cirrhosis other than NASH; and
(vi) consequently, Akero had materially misrepresented the
nature of the SYMMETRY trial, its usefulness in supporting any new
drug application, the likelihood that the SYMMETRY trial would be
successful as measured by its primary endpoint, and the likelihood
that EFX would become a commercial treatment for NASH cirrhotics.
It was not until Akero disclosed the study's 36-week results on
October 10, 2023 that the market finally began to learn the truth,
with investors suffering substantial losses and damages under the
federal securities laws as the price of Akero stock plummeted
nearly 70% in response, according to the Akero class action
lawsuit.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Akero common
stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff
in the Akero class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally
the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief
sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of
the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Akero class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Akero
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Akero class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm was ranked #1 on the ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more than $1.75
billion for investors in 2022 -- the third year in a row Robbins
Geller topped the list. And in those three years alone, Robbins
Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more than
double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200
lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest
plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have
obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history, including the largest securities class action recovery
ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please
visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
800-449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
AKIMA GLOBAL: Yeend Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALILA YEEND, BOUNNAM
PHIMASONE, ELVIN MINAYA RODRIGUEZ, LISA LAPOINTE, and SHANTADEWIE
RAHMEE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated as Class Representatives, v. AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01281-AMN-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g), certifying the following
three plaintiff classes:
(1) Forced Labor Class, made up of all detainees at the Buffalo
Federal Detention Facility ("BFDF") who participated in the
Voluntary Worker Program from Feb. 1, 2015 through the date
of
final judgment in this action;
(2) Labor Law Class, made up of all BFDF detainees who
participated
in the Voluntary Worker Program from Sept. 8, 2016 through
the
date of final judgment in this action;
(3) Unjust Enrichment Class, made up of all BFDF detainees who
participated in the Voluntary Worker Program who performed
work
in the housing units or the kitchen from Sept. 8, 2016
through
the date of final judgment in this action; and further
appointing as class counsel Alison Frick and Alyssa
Isidoridy,
of Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP, and Maureen Hussain,
Cristina Brito, and Olivia Post Rich, of Worker Justice
Center
of New York; directing the Defendant to produce all
information
necessary to effectuate notice and class-wide resolution of
the
claims; setting a schedule for the Plaintiffs to submit for
the
Court's approval a proposed notice to be sent to all class
members in accordance with Rule 23; and for any other relief
the Court deems just and proper.
The Defendant specializes in information technology system
integration, detention management operations, as well as data and
records management.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r5rgit at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Allison Frick, Esq.
Alyssa Isidoridy, Esq.
KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP
18E, 48th Street, Suite 802
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 660-2332
E-mail: africk@kllf-law.com
aisidoridy@kllf-law.com
- and -
Maureen Hussain, Esq.
Cristina Brito, Esq.
Olivia Post Rich, Esq.
WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK
9 Main Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 331-6615
E-mail: mhussain@wjcny.org
cbrito@wjcny.org
opostrich@wjcny.org
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Class Cert Bid Extended to May 20
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MEINERT and NICHOLAS
SCHALLUS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, d/b/a PITTSBURGH REGIONAL
TRANSIT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-RJC (W.D Pa.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting their consent motion to extend
date to file opposition to motion to certify class action until May
20, 2024.
The Plaintiffs obtained an extension of seven days to file their
motion to certify, which reduced by one week the Defendant's time
to file a response. The Lead counsel for Defendant, John Myers, has
a long-planned vacation from May 10 until May 18, 2024, which
covers a significant part of the first extension week.
The Defendant is the second-largest public transit agency in
Pennsylvania and the 20th-largest in the United States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m8RNfo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
John J. Myers, Esq.
William S. Myers, Esq.
ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 566-5900/412-566-1938
Facsimile: jmyers@eckertseamans.com
wmyers@eckertseamans.com
ALLIANCE SOLUTIONS: Christian Files Personal Injury Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Solutions
Group, LLC. The case is captioned as JAMES CHRISTIAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANCE
SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00456-PAB (N.D. Ohio, March
8, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant.
Alliance Solutions Group, LLC is an employment agency in
Independence, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher D. Wiest, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER D. WIEST
50 East Rivercenter Blvd., Ste. 1280
Covington, KY 41011
Telephone: (513) 257-1895
Email: chris@cwiestlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Amazon Prime Video Litigation, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties request the Court
to enter the following proposed order and set the deadlines for
discovery and class-certification briefing:
Event Proposed Date
Close of Fact Discovery: April 25, 2025
Close of Expert Discovery: July 11, 2025
Close of Rebuttal Expert Discovery: Aug. 25, 2025
Deadline for Motion for Class Oct. 9, 2025
Certification:
Deadline for Amazon's Opposition to Nov. 24, 2025
Class Certification Motion:
Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Dec. 15, 2025
in Support of Motion for Class
Certification:
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=np6jyD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
George V. Granade, II, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, Suite 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643‐0500
E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303‐0552
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682‐5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq.
Thomas J. Tobin, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com
MWebster@perkinscoie.com
TTobin@perkinscoie.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Illegal Employee Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges
Amazon.com Services has illegally collected, stored and shared
Illinois employees' facial scans without consent.
The 14-page privacy lawsuit was filed by an Amazon warehouse
employee in Chicago who claims the company scanned her facial
geometry using biometric-enabled software each time she clocked in
or out of her shifts. The suit contends that Amazon has run afoul
of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by capturing,
storing and disseminating to third-party vendors the plaintiff's
and other workers' biometric data without first providing written
notice and obtaining consent.
According to the case, the company has also violated the BIPA by
failing to publish a written policy that provided details on how
long the information would be retained and when it would be
destroyed.
The complaint further charges that Amazon has failed to permanently
delete the plaintiff's biometric information as required under the
BIPA, which stipulates that workers' data should be destroyed after
the initial purpose for collecting such identifiers has been
satisfied.
The plaintiff claims she was never informed that Amazon was
collecting and storing her facial geometry, nor did she at any time
authorize the company to do so, the suit says.
The filing argues that the defendant's allegedly improper conduct
exposes its workers to grave privacy risks.
"For example, if Amazon.com Services' database containing facial
geometry scans or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, Amazon employees have no
means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or
other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private
information," the case stresses.
The lawsuit looks to represent Illinois residents who had their
biometric data collected by Amazon.com Services at any point in the
past five years. [GN]
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Withholds Insurers' Future Labor, Stanley Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROY STANLEY and GAIL STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10622-DJC (D. Mass., March 13,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract and declaratory judgment and relief.
The case arises from a dispute between policyholders, including the
Plaintiffs, and their property insurer, American Economy Insurance
Company. The lawsuit concerns the withholding of future labor, yet
to be incurred, by American Economy as depreciation when it
calculates and pays its actual cash value (ACV) payment obligations
for structural property losses, except for the labor that is
expressly permitted to be withheld under the express terms of
American Economy's insurance policies. The Plaintiffs and the Class
seek to remedy the improper withholdings of future labor from their
ACV payments.
American Economy Insurance Company is an insurance company
headquartered in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-9700
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
Email: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com
AMERICAN LIFE: Hosseini Files Contract Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Life, Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as SEYED SAEED HOSSEINI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN LIFE,
INC. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01988-MWF-AS (C.D. Cal., March 12,
2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged contract
violation.
American Life, Inc. is a real estate developer in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fari Bari Nejadpour, Esq.
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 630
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 954-9595
Facsimile: (800) 760-1107
Email: nejadpour@lalawinc.com
AMERICAN PUBLISHING: Files Class Action Over Key Bridge Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine O'Neill, writing for The Daily Record, reports that a
Baltimore publishing company has filed a proposed class-action
claim on behalf of businesses affected by the Francis Scott Key
Bridge collapse last month.
If approved, the claim says, the class could end up including "tens
of thousands of businesses" that were harmed when a massive
container ship struck the Key Bridge on the early morning of March
26, sending the span tumbling into the Patapsco River below.
The company behind the claim is American Publishing LLC, which
produces the United States Cybersecurity Magazine and the Armed
Forces Directory, an informational publication distributed at
Aberdeen Proving Ground and Fort Meade, according to court papers.
The company is owned by Karen and Charles Austin, who say they saw
a decline in sales after the bridge collapse.
The couple was "positioned to continue their business operations
undisturbed, yet the destruction of the Key Bridge directly
undermined this stability, causing ongoing significant revenue
losses," according to the class-action claim. "Claimants' income
declined 84% when comparing April 2023 to April 2024. There was no
other reason for this dramatic loss of income other than the
destruction of the Key Bridge."
A judge will have to decide whether to certify the proposed class.
The new court papers claim that the owner and manager of the ship
that caused the Key Bridge collapse should not be allowed to limit
their liability in the crash. The two companies filed a limitation
of liability action just days after the disaster, asking to cap the
amount of damages they could be required to pay at about $43
million.
Baltimore's Key Bridge destroyed: Everything you need to know
"Essentially, the negligence of the (companies) not only led to the
physical destruction of the Key Bridge but also precipitated a
broader economic shutdown in Baltimore, severely affecting local
business owners like Claimants," wrote one of the lawyers for the
publisher, Roy L. Mason.
Todd Lochner, an admiralty lawyer based in Annapolis, is also
representing American Publishing.
The ship that caused the Key Bridge collapse, the Dali, is owned by
a Singaporean company called Grace Ocean Private Limited and
managed by Synergy Marine Pte. Ltd. The companies asked to limit
their liability under an 1851 law that was famously invoked after
the sinking of the Titanic in 1912.
If successful, the action would allow the companies to limit their
liability to the value of the Dali and its cargo. The 95,000-ton
vessel remains stuck in the Patapsco River. It reportedly suffered
a power failure as it was leaving the Port of Baltimore and struck
one of the Key Bridge's support piers, causing the bridge to
collapse. The crash killed six members of a construction crew who
were working on the bridge at the time.
"Thousands of ships have made the same journey the Dali made that
fateful day when the Key Bridge was struck without incident," said
Mason, who is of counsel for the Washington, D.C., law firm Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman. "There were major red flags that
the Dali never should have left port that day, which makes the
bridge collapse -- and the damage to Mr. and Mrs. Austin's business
-- entirely preventable."
The city of Baltimore has also filed a claim and asked a federal
judge to reject the companies' request to limit their liability.
[GN]
ANGELICA CORPORATION: Smith Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
v. ANGELICA CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation; ANGELICA TEXTILE
SERVICES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01968-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff,
on Aug. 1, 2024, will move this Court for an Order pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1), certifying, a plaintiff
class and sub-classes as follows:
Recordkeeping Meal Period Class:
"All non-exempt, hourly employees of the Defendants who worked
a
shift in excess of five hours for the time period beginning on
Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment, and whose
timekeeping records reflect a late, shortened, or missed meal
period."
Auto-Deduct Class:
"All non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendants who worked a
shift in excess of five hours for the time period beginning on
Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment, and who had
a
half-hour of time deducted from their pay on each shift."
Second Meal Period Class:
"All non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendants who worked a
shift
in excess of ten hours for the time period beginning on Sept.
26,
2017, through the date of final judgment."
Overtime Class:
"All persons employed by Defendants in hourly or non-exempt
positions in California who worked a shift greater than eight
(8)
hours, or who worked more than 40 hours during a given workweek
during the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017, through the
date of final judgment."
Off-the-Clock Class:
"All non-exempt, hourly employees of the Defendants who worked
a
shift during the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017,
through
the date of final judgment."
The Plaintiff will also move the court for an order appointing the
Plaintiff as class representative of the classes and sub-classes
proposed and/or later proposed and approved by the Court; and
approving Shaun Setareh and William M. Pao of the Setareh Law Group
as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g).
The low number of timeclocks, combined with Angelica’s practice
of releasing employees for their meal breaks at the same time
resulted in lines to clock in and clock out which the Plaintiff and
putative class members were not compensated for.
On Sept. 6, 2017, the Plaintiff began his employment with the
Defendants as a production worker at the Fresno location.
Angelica is the provider of textile rental and linen management
services to the U.S. healthcare market.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aQJdLR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Brian Louis, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
brian@setarehlaw.com
APPLE INC: Bodenburg Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BODENBURG, On Behalf
Of Herself And All Others Similarly Situated, v. APPLE INC., Case
No. 3:23-cv-04409-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will, on July 16,
2024, ask the court to enter and order certifying this action as a
class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and
23(b)(2) and appointing her and her counsel as class representative
and Class Counsel, respectively.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule
23(b)(2) Class defined as:
"All subscribers within the United States who during the Class
Periods paid for an Apple iCloud subscription (also called
"iCloud+" since June 2021). The Class Period applicable to Count
I
(breach of contract) and Count IV (violations of UCL) of the
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint is the period
from
Sept. 1, 2019 until the date of the filing of Plaintiff's motion
for class certification. The Class Period applicable to Count II
(CLRA violations) and Count III (FAL violation) of the
Plaintiff's
Class Action Complaint is the period from Sept. 1, 2020 until
the
date of the filing of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification."
Specifically excluded from the class definition are Apple, its
employees, and directors, as well as all judicial officers assigned
to this case, along with their staff and family members.
If the Court were to find this class definition overly broad or
otherwise unsuitable for class certification, the Plaintiff
requests in the alternative certification of any narrower class or
subclass definition suitable for class certification.
Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KRnyyi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 201
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 363-3333
Facsimile: (866) 832-5852
E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com
- and -
Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
Ian D. Krupar, Esq.
THE KALFAYAN LAW FIRM, APC
2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 200
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 232-0331
Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
E-mail: ralph@rbk-law.com
ian@rbk-law.com
ARISE VIRTUAL: Seeks to Defer Class Cert Opposition Briefing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIAVION DE NIRO,
individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00695-APG-EJY (D.
Nev.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order deferring
briefing in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification so that the Court can decide Arise's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings first, and to the extent the
Plaintiff's Motion is reached by the Court, granting Arise an
extension of time up to 21 days after this Court rules on Arise's
Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings.
On Apr. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, alleging
Arise failed to pay her minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and required her to pay for her training, equipment,
and other expenses or deductions from her pay. The same day, the
Plaintiff also filed her motion for conditional certification,
seeking to bring these claims on behalf of a putative FLSA
collective.
On April 26, 2024, the parties filed a revised joint stipulation to
extend Arise's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion from
April 25 to May 2, and to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint from
May 2 to May 9.
If this Court determines that the Plaintiff must individually
arbitrate her claims, as other courts faced with the same
agreements have held, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification is moot.
Arise provides business process outsourcing and consulting
services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cSUwZl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dora V. Lane, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
5470 Kietzke Lane, Suite 100
Reno, NV 89511-2094
Telephone: (775) 327-3000
Facsimile: (775) 786-6179
E-mail: dlane@hollandhart.com
- and -
Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
Katy (Yin Yee) Ho, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
kho@omm.com
AUTODESK INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Autodesk, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADSK) investors who
suffered substantial losses to take action now by submitting your
losses here.
Class Period: June 1, 2023 -- Apr. 16, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 24, 2024
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/adsk
Contact An Attorney Now: ADSK@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Autodesk, Inc. (ADSK) Securities Fraud Class Action:
Autodesk, a software company empowering design and engineering
professionals, has been hit with an investor class action after a
recent disclosure raised concerns about the propriety of its
financial reporting practices.
Just months ago, in Mar. 2024, Autodesk boasted impressive
financial results. The company reported a strong non-GAAP operating
margin of 36% and healthy free cash flow of $427 million for the
fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2024. This positive news sent
the stock price soaring, closing $6.57 higher on Mar. 1.
However, the rosy picture painted by Autodesk may not have been
entirely accurate. A recent investor class action lawsuit alleges
that the company and its executives made misleading statements and
failed to disclose internal control deficiencies related to its
free cash flow and non-GAAP operating margin calculations.
Investor confidence took a sharp turn on Apr. 1, 2024, when
Autodesk announced a delay in filing its annual financial
statements for the fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2024. The company
revealed that management identified issues with its free cash flow
and non-GAAP operating margin practices. This prompted the
company's Audit Committee to launch an internal investigation and
notify the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Following this
news, the price of Autodesk shares plummeted by $10.73 on Apr. 2.
"We are investigating whether Autodesk may have inflated its
operating margin and free cash to make it seem financially stronger
than it really was," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Autodesk should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email ADSK@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates
and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Attorney advertising.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
AYLO HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AYLO HOLDINGS S.A.R.L.; AYLO FREESITES, LTD.
d/b/a/ "PORNHUB"; AYLO USA INC.; AYLO GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT INC.;
9219-1568 QUEBEC, INC.; TOQON, LLC; AYLO BILLING LTD.; AYLO BILLING
US CORP.; and AYLO CY HOLDINGS LTD, Defendants, Case 2:24-cv-03267
(C.D. Cal., April 19, 2024) alleges violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant Pornhub
extracts vast amounts of data from and about its users. This
information includes browser and operating system information,
devices used to access the Pornhub website, time zone settings, and
online identifiers like internet protocol addresses. Pornhub then
uses that information to glean demographics of its users for what's
called "targeted advertising," traditionally by age and gender.
Pornhub also extracts other user data, including what videos users
view on the website and their sexual predilections, the latter via
the use of so-called video "tags." This data is sent to servers
where it is indexed and profiled for potential advertisers. This
practice allows Pornhub to offer "advanced targeting" of users to
those advertisers, allowing them to target campaigns to users based
on keywords, search terms, and contextual targets, including the
identity and frequency of video tags associated with users' viewing
habits. Thus, Pornhub harvests and monetizes vast amounts of user
data that it shares with advertisers and other companies, says the
suit.
AYLO HOLDINGS S.A.R.L. (formerly MindGeek and Manwin) is a Canadian
multinational adult entertainment conglomerate owned by Canadian
private equity firm Ethical Capital Partners. It is primarily
involved in internet pornography, operating a number of video
sharing websites (including platforms such as Pornhub, RedTube, and
YouPorn), and pornographic film studios such as Brazzers, Digital
Playground, Men.com, Reality Kings, Sean Cody, and WhyNotBi.com,
among others. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Email: jrotter@glancylaw.com
- and -
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
Katelyn M. Leeviraphan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
kleeviraphan@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
David M. Given, Esq.
Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 – The Presidio
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 398-0900
Email: dmg@phillaw.com
nac@phillaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Oral Argument on Renewed Bid for Remand Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY NELSON and KAYLEIGH
POTTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASS'N., Case No. 5:23-cv-00255-JS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Juan R. Sanchez entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' letter request to schedule oral argument on
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Remand in advance of the scheduled
argument on the pending Motions for Class Certification, Summary
Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment.
The parties are advised that oral argument shall proceed on ALL
pending motions, including the Motion for Remand on Wednesday, June
5, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 14B.
Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial
institutions, serving individuals, small- and middle-market
businesses and large corporations.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eZLyRJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANNER LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Illinois GIPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit alleges Banner Life Insurance Company has
violated an Illinois privacy law by requesting genetic information
in the form of family medical histories to assess eligibility for
life insurance coverage.
The 12-page case alleges Banner Life Insurance Company has run
afoul of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), a law
that prohibits insurers from using protected genetic health
information for underwriting purposes, including for the assessment
of a person's eligibility for coverage.
The lawsuit relays that Banner, as part of its underwriting
process, requires prospective customers to undergo a physical
examination that includes the collection of information concerning
the manifestation of diseases in family members, and then uses that
data to assess their eligibility for coverage.
Per the case, the GIPA parameters for genetic information include
details pertaining to a person's genetic tests, the genetic tests
of the person's family members, the "manifestation of a disease or
disorder in family members" of the individual, or any request for,
or receipt of, genetic services by the individual or any of their
family members.
"In requiring prospective customers, such as Plaintiff, to disclose
their family medical histories, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs'
and other putative Class members' statutory right to genetic
privacy," the lawsuit summarizes.
According to the lawsuit, the GIPA stipulates that an insurer may
not use genetic information for underwriting purposes --
specifically for:
-- Determining the rules for eligibility for benefits,
determining whether someone is eligible for benefits, or
determining the benefits under the plan, coverage, or policy;
-- The calculation of premium or contribution amounts under the
plan, coverage or policy;
-- The application of any pre-existing condition exclusion under
the plan, coverage or policy; and
-- Other activities related to the creation, renewal or
replacement of a contract of health insurance or health benefits.
The lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who applied for
insurance coverage with Banner Life Insurance Company in Illinois
and from whom the company, or an agent acting on its behalf,
requested and/or obtained family medical history or other genetic
information within the applicable statute of limitations period.
[GN]
BARILLA AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing in Sinatro Continued to May 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sinatro, et al., v.
Barilla America, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460 (N.D. Cal., Filed
June 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order
setting motion and deadlines / hearings order:
-- The parties that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify
class and motion to exclude defendant's class certification
expert
robin cantor and further CMC have been continued to May 23,
2024
at 1:00 p.m. in Oakland -- Videoconference Only.
The nature of suit Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.
Barilla is family-owned Pasta company.[CC]
BARILLA AMERICA: Diaz Sues Over Pasta Sauces "No Preservative" Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00655-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla., March 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, violations
of Florida Statute and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from Barilla's false, deceptive, and misleading
advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Tomato Basil, Fire
Roasted Marinara, Marinara, Traditional and Roasted Garlic pasta
sauces. Barilla marketed and sold the products using a front label
which prominently displayed "No Preservative." However, the claims
is false because the products contain a significant amount of
citric acid. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiff and members of the Classes have suffered injury in fact
and lost money, says the suit.
Barilla America, Inc. is a food company, headquartered in Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan J. Geiger, Esq.
SERAPH LEGAL, P.A.
2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. A
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 567-1230
Email: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com
BBBB BONDING: Benton Suit Moved to the E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL BENTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BBBB BONDING
CORPORATION; CLIFFORD JEFFREY STANLEY; ROBERT HILL-VENN; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Joaquin, to the U.S. District Court for the the Eastern District of
California on May 3, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:24-at-00562 to the proceeding.
BBBB BONDING CORPORATION operates as a bail bond company. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq.
Peter E. Garrell, Esq.
GARRELL COHON KENNEDY LLP
550 S Hope Street, Suite 460
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 647-0730
Facsimile: (213) 647-0732
Email: jcohon@gckllp.com
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino of Canadian Lawyer reports that in a recent ruling,
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action
lawsuit against crypto asset trading platform Binance Holdings
Limited.
The plaintiffs, representing Canadian retail purchasers of
cryptocurrency derivative products, have sued for damages and
rescission of contracts, alleging illegal sales by Binance due to
its failure to register under the Ontario Securities Act (OSA) or
to file a prospectus.
Binance, a Cayman Islands company, and its Canadian subsidiaries
are accused of marketing and selling cryptocurrency derivatives to
Canadian investors from 2019 to 2023 without the necessary
registrations. This certification is part of a broader scrutiny
under which Binance has come under various regulatory radars,
including prior actions by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC)
due to non-compliance with securities laws.During the period in
question, Binance enabled customers to trade in three types of
cryptocurrency derivatives -- futures, options, and leveraged
tokens -- via its online platform. These products, recognized as
securities under the OSA, were available to Canadian users through
a streamlined online setup process described as a "click
contract."
In detailing its operations, Binance promoted a unified ecosystem
approach, presenting all associated entities as part of a single
operational network. This effectively blurred the lines of
individual responsibility within the corporate structure. However,
at no point did Binance or its subsidiaries obtain the necessary
regulatory approvals to operate as a securities dealer or
distributor in Canada, thus contravening the OSA.
The certification motion focused on whether the class action could
adequately address the issues at stake without descending into
individual claim assessments. The Superior Court found a
commonality in the allegations, particularly the failure to comply
with regulatory requirements, which could be collectively
addressed. Furthermore, the court dismissed Binance's arguments
against rescission, a remedy seeking to return parties to their
pre-contractual state, citing a lack of evidence that such a
measure would be unfeasible or inappropriate on a class-wide
basis.
As a result of the court’s decision, the class action will
proceed, encompassing all Canadian purchasers of Binance's
cryptocurrency derivatives within the specified period. The
plaintiffs aim to establish that Binance’s lack of compliance
with securities laws resulted in the illegal sale of financial
products, warranting damages and rescission for affected investors.
Legal proceedings against Binance continue to develop, with the
company also settling regulatory disputes in the United States.
[GN]
BONNIE PLANTS: Collects Data Without Consent, Engelkens Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BLAZE ENGELKENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BONNIE PLANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03603 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2024) alleges violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in unlawful collection, obtainment, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric
identifiers and biometric information (collectively referred to
herein as "biometric data" and "biometrics").
The Defendant disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated the
Plaintiff's biometric information (1) without the Plaintiff's
consent; (2) without the Plaintiff's authorization to complete a
financial transaction requested or authorized by the Plaintiff; (3)
without being required by State or federal law or municipal
ordinance; or (4) without being required pursuant to a valid
warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction,
says the suit.
BONNIE PLANTS, LLC operates general farms that produce crops. The
Company supplies vegetables, herbs, and flowers to retail stores.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street,
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERIC ROLAND, JOSE
ANTONIO RAMOS LIMA, FLAVIO LIMA HERCULANO, ALTINO BARROS, and
JAILSON PIRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a
CARDINAL HOME DELIVERY CARRIERS, Case No. 1:23-cv-11586-AK (D.
Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for Class Certification.
The deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
this case was set, by court order, for May 1, 2024.
Since the Court's order, the Plaintiffs have amended their
Complaint on three separate occasions to add new Plaintiffs.
In addition, over the past few months, the Parties have engaged in
written discovery, with the Defendant issuing discovery requests to
the additional Plaintiffs as they were added.
The Plaintiffs have only received discovery responses and documents
from the Defendant this week. The Defendant only received further
discovery responses from Plaintiff, Altino Barros on April 18,
2024.
Cardinal is a national provider of transportation and logistics
solutions.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6b8Mvt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994 5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
James W. Simpson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES W. SIMPSON, JR., P.C.
100 Concord St., Ste. 3B
Framingham, MA 01702
Telephone: (508) 872-0002
E-mail: james@simpsonlawoffices.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew J. Fay, Esq.
Alexis D. McLachlan, Esq.
FAY LAW GROUP, LLC
One Boston Place, 26th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 826-6006
Facsimile: (617) 941-7100
E-mail: afay@faylawgrp.com
amclachlan@faylawgrp.com
CATALENT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Novo Holdings
-------------------------------------------------------------
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:
a. Catalent, Inc. (NYSE: CTLT ), relating to its proposed sale
to Novo Holdings. Under the terms of the agreement, CTLT
shareholders will receive $63.50 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/catalent-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
b. McGrath RentCorp (Nasdaq: MGRC ), relating to its proposed
sale to WillScot Mobile Mini Holdings Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, MGRC shareholders will receive either $123.00 in cash or
2.8211 shares of WillScot per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/mcgrath-rentcorp.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
c. Chord Energy Corp. (Nasdaq: CHRD ), relating to its
proposed merger with Enerplus Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, Enerplus shareholders are expected to receive 0.10125
shares of Chord plus $1.84 in cash per share they own. Click here
for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/chord-energy-corp/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
d. HireRight Holdings Corp. (NYSE: HRT ), relating to its
proposed sale to affiliates of General Atlantic, L.P. and Stone
Point Capital LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, HRT
shareholders are expected to receive $14.35 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/hireright-holdings-corp. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
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]
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Matlick Files Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Change Healthcare
Inc. The case is styled as Lonny David Matlick doing business as:
Lonny D. Matlick, D.O., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Inc., Optum, Inc.,
Unitedhealth Group Incorporated, Case No. 3:24-cv-04364-MAS-TJB
(D.N.J., March 28, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Change Healthcare -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
COINBASE GLOBAL: Aceves Sues Over Sale of Crypto Currency
---------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO ACEVES; THOMAS FAN; EDWIN MARTINEZ; TIFFANY SMOOT; EDOUARD
CORDI; and BRETT MAGGARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.; COINBASE,
INC.; COINBASE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; and BRIAN ARMSTRONG,
Defendants, Case 3:24-cv-02663 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2024) alleges
violation of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, Coinbase has
knowingly, intentionally, and repeatedly violated state securities
laws since it began doing business. Indeed, it admits in its User
Agreement that is a "Securities Broker," that the Digital Asset
Securities sold by Coinbase are "financial assets", Coinbase is a
"securities intermediary", and that the Digital Asset Wallets
custodially held by Coinbase are "securities account."
When Coinbase filed with the states and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") to become a public company a few years
ago, it disclosed that its business involved selling securities but
that it was not registered to do so. In drafting its User Agreement
with the investors and other customers, Coinbase specifically
identifies the crypto assets it sells as "securities." And yet,
Coinbase has never registered itself, its people, or the crypto
securities it sells, says the suit.
COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. provides financial solutions. The Company
offers platform to buy and sell cryptocurrencies. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Securities Claims Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Compass Minerals International Inc. (NYSE: CMP)
between November 29, 2023 and March 22, 2024, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Compass Minerals investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Compass Minerals class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8924 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
(1) Compass Minerals overstated the likelihood that it would
be awarded a renewed U.S. Forest Service contract for the use of
its proprietary magnesium chloride-based aerial fire retardants for
the 2024 fire season, as a result of safety issues presented by its
fire retardant;
(2) Compass Minerals materially overstated the extent to which
testing had confirmed that its fire retardants were safe; and
(3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 24,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8924 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CONCORD SERVICING: Faces Hartshorn FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concord Servicing
LLC. The case is captioned as DOLORES HARTSHORN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONCORD SERVICING
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02077-MCA-JSA (D.N.J., March 8, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Concord Servicing LLC is a loan servicing technology based in
Scottsdale, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
EMERGE CANADA: Proposed ETF Class Action Lawsuit Discontinued
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Shin, writing for Investment Executive, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit filed against former fund manager
Emerge Canada Inc. will not be proceeding because "the prospect of
recovery is nil," the lawyer for the class says.
"I would express tremendous disappointment that we were unable to
pursue this case," said Garth Myers, partner with Kalloghlian Myers
LLP in Toronto. "We think the allegations continue to have merit."
Myers said the reason for discontinuing the case is based entirely
on financial factors. He said his firm applied to Ontario's class
proceedings fund "for disbursements and an adverse cost indemnity,
and we were denied."
As part of that application process, Myers said he was advised that
Emerge Canada "has no assets or insurance," and that Emerge's
insurance lapsed before the notice of action in the case was
filed.
Myers said he will mail a motion of discontinuance to Emerge's
lawyer, adding that a court must provide permission to discontinue
the case.
The proposed class action was filed on June 12, 2023, and had not
been certified. The action alleged that unitholders suffered
damages because of Emerge's misconduct as well as the prolonged
cease-trade order under which its 11 ETFs were placed.
That unprecedented cease-trade order began in April 2023, and
lasted until the ETFs were delisted in October. Unitholders
remained trapped in the ETFs until the funds were terminated in
December.
The allegations in the proposed class action have not been proven,
and a lawyer for Emerge Canada did not respond to a request for
comment by press time.
On May 11, 2023, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) suspended
Emerge Canada's registration for capital deficiency, highlighting a
receivable owed to five of its Emerge ARK ETFs that had grown to
$5.5 million. The receivable totalled $4.69 million as of Dec. 29,
2023, including interest.
The former unitholders are now unsecured creditors of Emerge
Canada, and no update has been provided about the status of the
receivable.
The OSC continues to oversee Emerge Canada and require that its
activities be monitored by a law firm, though it suspended the
registrations of Emerge Canada on Feb. 12. In March, the OSC
confirmed that it is investigating Emerge.
Myers said the discontinuance of the proposed class action would
not prevent former unitholders from making individuals claims
against Emerge. "There's no prejudice to the class from our
discontinuance," he said.
Emerge ETFs timeline
-- Nov. 3, 2022: BDO LLP resigns as auditor of the Emerge Canada
Inc. funds
-- March 31, 2023: Deadline by which Emerge Canada was supposed
to file annual audited financial statements
-- April 6: Cease-trade order issued on all 11 ETFs managed by
Emerge Canada
-- April 14: Investment Executive reports that Emerge Canada's
suite of six ARK ETFs is owed more than $2.5 million in receivables
from Emerge
-- May 11: Emerge Canada suspended for capital deficiency
-- July 14: Liquidation date for the U.S. versions of the five
EMPWR ETFs
-- August: In documents filed with the Erie County Clerk, a woman
hired in February 2022 as an executive assistant with Buffalo,
N.Y.-based Emerge Capital Management Inc. alleges she was not paid
wages from Dec. 16, 2022, until March 6, 2023
-- Sept. 15: Five U.S. EMPWR ETFs apply to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission to deregister
-- October: Three employees of Emerge Canada Inc. file a notice
of motion against CEO Lisa Langley and Emerge Capital Management
Inc. for failing to repay nearly US$200,000 they lent the firm
earlier in the year
-- Oct. 31: Date of Emerge Canada ETF liquidations
-- Dec. 20: Pro rata shares paid out to unitholders "on or
before" this date; ETFs without receivables terminated
-- Dec. 29: Termination date of the five Emerge ARK ETFs with
outstanding receivables
-- Jan. 5: Emerge announces its unitholders have become unsecured
creditors [GN]
EMPIRE AUTO: Misner Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Auto Protect,
LLC. The case is captioned as BRADY MISNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPIRE AUTO PROTECT,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01282-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 8, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Empire Auto Protect, LLC is a vehicle service plan company doing
business in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
EVENT WORKFORCE: Hilbert Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREL HILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVENT WORKFORCE GROUP (USA) INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01876-JPC (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://rosterfy.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members from enjoying the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. Further, these access barriers deter the Plaintiff and
the Class on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's website
in the future without the aid of a sighted person to help them
navigate, which is antithetical to the freedoms promised to the
visually impaired by the passage of federal and state disability
civil rights legislation.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Event Workforce Group (USA) Inc., doing business as Rosterfy, is a
company that sells goods and services, doing business in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric L. Siegel, Esq.
ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC
888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (771) 220-6116
Facsimile: (202) 223-6625
EVOLV TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Product Effectiveness
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Mintzer, writing for WKRN.COM, reports that a weapons
detection technology company used by schools and venues across
Tennessee is being sued.
The class action lawsuit against Evolv Technology alleges the
publicly traded company lied about the effectiveness of its
artificial intelligence-powered weapons detection scanners.
Evolv's scanners are used at Nissan Stadium, Bridgestone Arena,
Clarksville-Montgomery County Schools and Rutherford County schools
to name a few. The company advertises its technology as a
replacement for metal detectors that can detect guns, knives and
bombs on people as they enter a building.
In a 39-page lawsuit, plaintiffs say they were deceived by Evolv
and the system, "does not reliably detect knives or guns."
The plaintiffs go on to allege Evolv had, "taken significant action
to make it appear that its products were effective, including
manipulating test results.
The lawsuit references a 2022 Evolv blog post saying they had
"third-party validation" of the scanner's effectiveness.
However, the suit includes screenshots of test results pulled from
news articles and posts by another security company claiming to
show Evolv's technology is not as effective as advertised.
The court documents also contain a screenshot of an email from
Evolv's Vice President of Technical Sales to the group producing
the third-party report with edits to the final document.
"Evolv was heavily involved in the decision-making and language of
the final report issued," the plaintiffs claim.
In a statement to News 2, Evolv said they can't comment on any
pending litigation.
"We stand behind our technology and are proud to partner with
hundreds of security professionals around the world."
The plaintiffs suing Evolv are demanding a jury trial and asking
for compensation for the alleged lies.
Clarksville-Montgomery and Rutherford County Schools are both
piloting an Evolv system and said they are still in the trial phase
and continuing to monitor and test the technology. [GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Humphrey Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as DEANNA HUMPHREY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-00524-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an information services
company based in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, No. 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
- and -
Philip Ross Goldberg, Esq.
SERAPH LEGAL PA
11045 Camarillo Street, No 116
North Hollywood, CA 91602
Telephone: (773) 388-2784
Facsimile: (855) 205-4380
Email: pgoldberg@seraphlegal.com
FUSION SPONSOR LLC: Martel Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FUSION SPONSOR LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Kyle Martel and Joe Bryant, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated v. FUSION SPONSOR LLC, JOHN
JAMES, JEFFREY GARY, JIM ROSS, KELLY DRISCOLL, BEN BUETTELL,
DIWAKAR CHOUBEY and BROADHAVEN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Case No.
2024-0329-NAC (Del. Chancery Ct., March 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."
Fusion Sponsor LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
Jason M. Avellino, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Phone: (302) 622-7000
Email: ktucker@gelaw.com
javellino@gelaw.com
- and -
Carl L. Stine, Esq.
Adam J. Blander, Esq.
Timothy D. Brennan, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 759-4600
Fax: (212) 486-2093
Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
ablander@wolfpopper.com
tbrennan@wolfpopper.com
- and -
Michael Klausner, Esq.
559 Nathon Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Phone: (650) 740-1194
Email: klausner@stanford.edu
GENERAL MOTORS: Block Sues Over Tracking of Driving Behavior Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Block and Charles Justus, III, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ONSTAR LLC,
and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10824-JJCG-CI
(E.D. Mich., March 31, 2024), is brought arising from the
clandestine tracking, interception, transmission, and collection of
Americans' driving behavior data with secret computer systems
automatically installed in their vehicles or on their cellular
telephones.
Recently unveiled in a March 11, 2024 New York Times article, these
electronics were also carrying out a more nefarious purpose: the
secret tracking, interception, transmission, and collection of
millions of drivers' personal driving behavior data, which was then
sold by GM and OnStar through intermediaries such as LexisNexis
Risk Solutions to automobile insurance companies, who in turn used
the data to increase drivers' vehicle insurance premiums.
The information collected included what LexisNexis calls
"telematics data," which itself includes acceleration events, hard
brake events, high speed events, distance traveled, time of day
traveled, vehicle information such as VINs, and sometimes location
data and GPS data.
The Plaintiffs are just two of the millions of drivers of GM
manufactured vehicles who have had their data secretly intercepted
and used in this illegal scheme. They bring this action for damages
and injunctive relief on behalf of all persons whose driver
behavior data was impacted by Defendants' illegal conduct, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are natural persons, and are residents and citizens
of Florida.
GM manufactures and sells vehicles in the United States and across
the world, including Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, and Buick branded
vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
Facundo M. Scialpi, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 750-3000
Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
acohen@rgrdlaw.com
fscialpi@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Marc A. Wites, Esq.
WITES & ROGERS, P.A.
4400 North Federal Highway
Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
Phone: 561/ 944-3437
Email: mwites@witeslaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that car manufacturer General Motors (GM) is the
subject of litigation in Georgia by two New Jersey Chevy Bolt
drivers who allege that GM collected data about their driving
habits and behavior and disclosed it to third parties, including
insurance companies, causing them to pay higher insurance rates and
experience difficulty in obtaining reasonable premiums.
They allege that they did not agree to the collection and
disclosure and that it was a breach of contract and their privacy.
The crux of the case alleges that GM collected their driving habits
and behavior and then shared it with third parties, including
OnStar, insurance carriers, and others. Although the plaintiffs
admit they were enrolled in OnStar, they did not agree to have
their data transmitted to third parties.
The case illustrates how data from vehicles can be collected and
disclosed and reminds us to review applicable privacy policies
whenever interacting with any technology, including vehicles.
Privacy policies and pop-ups are designed to provide consumers with
information about how data is collected, used, and disclosed, and
when downloading an app to any device (including a vehicle), it is
important to read the notices and set privacy settings in each
instance. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: King Sues Over Erroneous Reports
------------------------------------------------
Michael King and Gus Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated v. General Motors LLC; OnStar LLC; And
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02560-ODW-MAA
(C.D. Cal., March 28, 2024), is brought for violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act and to
challenge the actions of Defendants regarding erroneous reports of
derogatory and negative driving information made without
Plaintiffs' knowledge and/or consent, and the illegal transfer and
publication of same.
GM and OnStar illegally furnished Plaintiffs' private driving
information to Lexis without their knowledge and/or consent, which
Lexis utilized to prepare consumer disclosures available for public
consumption, including car insurance companies. Lexis' consumer
disclosures contain each driving event, including trip details that
show the start date, end date, start time, end time, acceleration
events, hard brake events, high speed events, distance, and VIN.
Notably absent from these consumer disclosures is any context
related to these driving events. The consumer reports do not define
what these events mean nor how they are calculated. Furthermore,
the reports do not explain how or why someone might have
experienced these events. Stating these events, by themselves, says
nothing of the other driving conditions and factors one may have
experienced. The only way for telematics data to reach insurance
companies is if someone "opts-in" with their insurance company to
get a safe driving discount. Plaintiffs never opted into any
insurance program that would have allowed their information to be
shared. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that General Motors and
OnStar sold and/or shared their driving data to Lexis without their
knowledge and/or consent.
The uncontextualized, misleading, and personal driving information
on their consumer disclosures harmed Plaintiffs by significantly
raising their insurance premiums and/or resulting in the denial of
coverage. Additionally, the data presented on the Lexis consumer
disclosure is so decontextualized that it can hardly be called
accurate. Nevertheless, insurance companies rely upon these
consumer reports to determine pricing and eligibility. Moreover,
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that GM and OnStar mislead
individuals about their data sharing practices. Plaintiffs never
knowingly consented to these practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in the State of
California and are "consumers."
GM is a corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Martin Schmidt, Esq.
SCHMIDT NATIONAL LAW GROUP
3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 335
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (800) 631-5656
Facsimile: (619) 393-1777
Email: mschmidt@nationalinjuryadvocates.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
1212 SE Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33317
Phone: (954) 467-8800
Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
Email: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
jonathan@schlesingerlaw.com
scott@schlesingerlaw.com
GLOBAL CORD: Faces Class Action Over Conflicted Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Global Cord Blood Corporation (NYSE: CO)
securities between June 4, 2019 and May 3, 2022. Global Cord Blood
provides umbilical cord blood storage and ancillary services in the
in the Beijing Municipality, Guangdong Province, and Zhejiang
Province of the People's Republic of China.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
the Board of Global Cord Blood Corporation (CO) Engaged in
Self-Serving and Conflicted Transactions
According to the complaint, during the class period, Defendants
failed to disclose that:
(i) Global Cord employed a capital allocation strategy
designed to reserve funds for Company insiders and related parties
rather than for the benefit of Company shareholders;
(ii) Global Cord's decisions to reject multiple going private
offers and enter into the Transaction were nothing more than
self-serving and conflicted attempts by Defendants to divert
company funds to corporate insiders and related parties;
(iii) Defendants fundamentally misrepresented to investors
Global Cord's approach to capital allocation, strategic
investments, acquisitions, and related party transactions as a
result of the misappropriation by Defendant Kam and his entities of
hundreds of millions of dollars from the Company; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result,
the Company's stock has declined, harming investors.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Global Cord Blood Corporation Shareholders who want to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with
the court by June 24, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Global Cord Blood
Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
GLOBAL K9: Faces Colindres Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANA NOH COLINDRES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP LLC, an
Alabama limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV06045 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorney General Act
including failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime
hours worked; failure to pay wages due upon termination; failure to
provide rest breaks; failure to provide uninterrupted meal breaks;
failure to reimburse for required business expenses; and failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a canine handler from
April 2023 through November 2023.
Global K9 Protection Group LLC is a security guard service provider
doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
Hilary Silvia, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
hilary@koullaw.com
GREAT LAKES: Faces Anderson Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
RASHAWNA CRYSTIAN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA BOTTLING, LLC, REYES
COCA-COLA BOTTLING, LLC, and REYES HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-02074 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee from approximately July 11, 2023, through October 6,
2023.
Great Lakes Coca-Cola Distribution, LLC, is a distributor of
Coca-Cola brands based in Chicago, Illinois.
Great Lakes Coca-Cola Bottling, LLC is a beverage company based in
Chicago, Illinois.
Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling, LLC is a distributor of Coca-Cola brands
headquartered in California.
Reyes Holdings, LLC is an American food and beverage distributor
and bottler headquartered in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
HEY FAVOR: Ct. Sets Hearing on Bid to Stay Consideration
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANELL SANFORD, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HEY FAVOR, INC.,
et al., Case No. 23-04038-elm (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge entered
an order:
(1) Setting hearing on Defendants' emergency motion to stay
consideration of class certification issues,
(2) Establishing responsive deadlines, and
(3) Granting bridge extension of deadline pending outcome of
Hearing.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iU2dMm at no extra
charge.[CC]
HIWASSEE ACRES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HIWASSEE ACRES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03006-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.adamscountywinery.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
HIWASSEE ACRES, LLC provides to the public a website known as
Adamscountywinery.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services, including, the ability to view
different types of wines, including white, and red, as well as
specialty wines such as dessert and fruit-flavored options. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
Manhasset, NY 11030
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Tel: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
HPG PIZZA: Seeks to Strike Opperman's Declaration in Mighell
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE MIGHELL, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. HPG PIZZA I, LLC, HPG
PIZZA II, LLC ROB PRANGE, DOE CORPORATION 1-12, AND JOHN DOE 1-10,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02533-SKC-MEH (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order granting their motion to strike Declaration
of Daniel Opperman filed in support of the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification.
Here, Mr. Opperman's declaration should be stricken in its entirety
because it is inadmissible and misleading.
The Plaintiff has no good faith basis whatsoever to claim that Mr.
Opperman ever worked as a driver for HPG Pizza I, LLC or HPG Pizza
II, LLC. Therefore, Mr. Opperman has no basis whatsoever for
providing testimony in support of Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification as to how HPG Pizza I, LLC or HPG Pizza
II, LLC reimbursed their drivers for expenses.
Especially given the fact that the Plaintiff's counsel knows that
Mr. Opperman was never a driver for these employer Defendants, the
Plaintiff's attempt to use the Opperman Declaration in such a
blatantly deceptive way cannot go unaddressed. The Opperman
Declaration should therefore be stricken in its entirety.
Mr. Daniel Opperman was employed as a delivery driver from January
2021 to September 2021 at a Papa Johns in Fountain, Colorado owned
by DCT Enterprises. In September of 2021, Opperman was promoted to
the position of general manager. On March 21, 2022—after Opperman
was no longer employed as a delivery driver—the Fountain Papa
Johns store was purchased by the Defendant HPG Pizza II, LLC.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahOGDW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Joseph Scherpenberg, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
jscherpenberg@billerkimble.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Micah D. Dawson, Esq.
Hillary R. Ross, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
1125 17th Street, Suite 2400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 218-3650
E-mail: mdawson@fisherphillips.com
hross@fisherphillips.com
INTRINSIC TRADING: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intrinsic Trading
LLC. The case is styled as Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Intrinsic Trading LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-01096-JMB-LIB (D. Minn.,
March 28, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Intrinsic Trading -- https://intrinsictrading.com/ -- is a world
leader in manufacturing natural gemstone beads, pendants, matching
earring pairs, and cabochons.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
JOYOUS PBC: Faces Suit Over Privacy Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOYOUS PBC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-02357-JCS (S.D. Cal., April 19, 2024) is a class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who have accessed
and used www.joyous.team (the "Website"), a website Defendant owns
and operates, alleges violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant aids employs, agrees, and
conspires with Meta, Google, and Twilio (together, the "Third
Parties") to intercept communications sent and received by
Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing
protected medical information.
Pursuant to the systematic process described herein, the Defendant
assisted the Third Parties with intercepting Plaintiff's
communications, including those that contained personally
identifiable information, protected health information, and related
confidential information. Defendant aided and assisted these
interceptions without Plaintiff's knowledge, consent, or express
written authorization.
After placing her order from the Website, Plaintiff began receiving
targeted advertisements from Joyous and other advertisements
related to ketamine therapy on Facebook and other internet sites.
By failing to receive the requisite consent, Defendant breached its
duties of confidentiality and unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's PII
and PHI, says the suit.
JOYOUS PBC is a Public Benefit Corporation specializing in
providing low-dose ketamine treatment to empower patients facing a
spectrum of mental health challenges, including anxiety,
depression, PTSD, OCD, and more. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
KLUGEX INC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Klugex, Inc. The case
is styled as Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Klugex, Inc. doing
business as: Blackhillsgold.direct, Case No. 0:24-cv-01085-ECT-LIB
(D. Minn., March 27, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Klugex, Inc. doing business as Blackhillsgold.direct --
https://blackhillsgold.direct/ -- offers a large selection of black
hills gold and silver jewelry at discounted prices.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
LAKE CONSUMER: Pineda Files Real Property Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lake Consumer
Products, Inc. The case is captioned as LORISA PINEDA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAKE CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-01074-JMG (E.D. Pa., March 12,
2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged real property
violations.
Lake Consumer Products, Inc. is a sales and marketing agency
headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Honik, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market St., Ste. 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
Email: ruben@honiklaw.com
LEMONADE INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Hilbert Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREL HILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEMONADE, INC. and LEMONADE INSURANCE
AGENCY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01873-ALC (S.D.N.Y.,
March 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains access
barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members from enjoying
the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to
the public through the website. Further, these access barriers
deter the Plaintiff and the Class on a regular basis from accessing
the Defendant's website in the future without the aid of a sighted
person to help them navigate, which is antithetical to the freedoms
promised to the visually impaired by the passage of federal and
state disability civil rights legislation.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Lemonade, Inc. is a company that sells goods and services online,
doing business in New York.
Lemonade Insurance Agency, LLC is a company that sells goods and
services online, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric L. Siegel, Esq.
ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC
888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (771) 220-6116
Facsimile: (202) 223-6625
LENS.COM INC: Martin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rickey Martin, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Lens.com, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. CACE-24-002448 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on March 27, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Lens.com -- https://www.lens.com/ -- is an online website that
supplies a wide variety of contact lenses from different
brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Matthew Stephens, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 939-0199
Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com
- and -
Matthew Herman, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS LLC
3 N 2nd Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
The Defendant is represented by:
James W. Lee, Esq.
Laselve Elijah Harrison, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER, FLEXNER LLP
100 SE 2nd Street, Suite #2800
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 359-8400
Fax: (305) 539-1307
Email: jlee@bsfllp.com
lharrison@bsfllp.com
- and -
Jed H. Hansen, Esq.
Joseph M. Harmer, Esq.
Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq.
THORPE NORTH & WESTERN LLP
The Walker Center, Suite 900
175 S Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 566-6633
Email: hansen@tnw.com
joseph.harmer@tnw.com
mark.bettilyon@tnw.com
LENS.COM INC: Nail Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Adam Nail, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lens.com, Inc., Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05473 was removed from the Superior Court
of California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on March 27, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02531-SB-E to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Lens.com -- https://www.lens.com/ -- is an online website that
supplies a wide variety of contact lenses from different
brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
Joshua T. Le, Esq.
Kevin B Kelly, Esq.
LTL Attorneys LLP
300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3950
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 612-8900
Fax: (213) 612-3773
Email: caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com
joshua.le@ltlattorneys.com
kevin.kelly@ltlattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jed H. Hansen, Esq.
Joseph M. Harmer, Esq.
Mark M. Bettilyon, Esq.
THORPE NORTH AND WESTERN LLP
175 South Main Street Suite 900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 566-6633
Fax: (801) 566-0750
Email: hansen@tnw.com
joseph.harmer@tnw.com
mark.bettilyon@tnw.com
- and -
Benjamin Juhyeok Kim, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
725 South Figueroa Street 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 629-9040
Fax: (213) 629-9022
Email: bkim@bsfllp.com
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Lincoln National Corporation ("Lincoln National" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LNC). 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 Lincoln National and certain of
its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices.
You have until June 24, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Lincoln National securities during the Class
Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On November 2, 2022, after the market closed, Lincoln National
released its third quarter 2022 financial results, reporting a net
loss of $2.6 billion for the quarter. This was compared to a net
income of $318 million for the third quarter of 2021 the previous
year. Lincoln National stated that "[t]he current quarter's
adjusted operating results included net unfavorable notable items
of $2.0 billion, or $11.62 per share, related to the company's
annual review of DAC and reserve assumptions." The Company also
disclosed that it "incurred a $634 million goodwill impairment to
the life insurance business."
On this news, Lincoln National's stock price fell $17.27 per share,
or 33.2%, to close at $34.83 per share on November 3, 2022.
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]
LUCKY BRANDS: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREW WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LUCKY BRANDS, Case No. 23-09310, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on March 12, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01076-GEKP to the proceeding.
The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Lucky Brands is a clothing company doing business in Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael A. Oropallo, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON, LLP
Barclay Damon Tower
125 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Telephone: (315) 425-2831
Facsimile: (315) 703-7367
Email: moropallo@barclaydamon.com
MATCH GROUP: Mendoza Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MATCH GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2024CH00728, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook
County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 8, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-01981 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant.
Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Thomas Burley, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
110 North Wacker Drive Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 324-8639
Email: dburley@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Hayden Marshall Schottlaender, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 965-7724
Email: HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 359-3787
Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
MATCH GROUP: Whitman Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA WHITMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MATCH GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2024CH00727, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook
County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 8, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-01987 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant.
Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Thomas Burley, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
110 North Wacker Drive Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 324-8639
Email: dburley@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Hayden Marshall Schottlaender, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 965-7724
Email: HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 359-3787
Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
MAY DYNASTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Han Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
FENG SHAN HAN; and LE ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAY DYNASTY LLC d/b/a
Crazy Dumpling; and QUN SHEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00654
(E.D. Va., April 19, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiffs Han and Zhang were employed by the Defendants as a
stir-fry cook and as a kitchen staff, respectively.
MAY DYNASTY LLC d/b/a Crazy Dumpling operates as a Chinese
restaurant in Fredericksburg, VA 22406. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Email: troylaw@troypllc.com
MDL 3100: Panel Denies Transfer of 9 Suits Due to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In "In re: Real Estate Commission Antitrust Litigation," MDL No.
3100, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the transfer of two cases
each from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri and the Eastern District of Texas, and one each from the
Northern District of California, Northern District of Georgia,
Southern District of New York, Western District of Pennsylvania and
the District of South Carolina, to the Western District of
Missouri.
All actions on the motion are brought on behalf of sellers of
residential real estate, alleging various aspects of rules
governing buyer broker compensation violate antitrust laws.
Defendant, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) is a national
trade association of real estate brokers and agents. Plaintiffs in
several of these actions allege that certain NAR rules require
sellers to make a comprehensive, unilateral, and (in practice)
non-negotiable offer of compensation to any broker representing
potential buyers as a condition of listing their home on a multiple
listing service (MLS). Plaintiffs allege that enforcement of this
rule results in price fixing, which has artificially inflated
residential real estate broker commissions paid by home sellers.
On March 15, 2024, NAR announced that it had reached a nationwide
class settlement that will resolve claims against NAR, over one
million NAR members, all state/territorial and local REALTOR(R)
associations, all association-owned MLSs, and all brokerages with
an NAR member as principal that had a residential transaction
volume in 2022 of $2 billion or below.
Given the broad contours of this new settlement agreement and the
changing landscape of the parties' positions on centralization, the
panel decided to deny centralization at this time as the settlement
may well resolve at least some claims in this litigation, if not
many.
A full-text copy of the court's April 12, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3100-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-24.pdf
MDL 3101: 10 Suits Consolidated in Baby Food Contamination Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
In "In re: Baby Food Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation (No. II)," MDL No. 3101, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers three cases from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, two each from the Central
District of California and the District of Nevada and one each from
the District of Arizona and the Western District of Missouri, all
to the Northern District of California and assigning them to Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. All responding plaintiffs support centralization while
all responding defendants oppose centralization.
Plaintiffs, who are minors, allege they were exposed to elevated
quantities of toxic heavy metals (namely, arsenic, lead, cadmium,
and mercury) from consuming defendants' baby food products and, as
a result, suffered brain injury that manifested in diagnoses of
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and/or attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
All actions share common issues of fact regarding the presence of
heavy metals in defendants' products, their knowledge of and
testing for heavy metals in their products, whether the presence of
these heavy metals could have caused plaintiffs' alleged injuries,
and whether defendants adequately warned of the presence of heavy
metals in their products.
Opponents of centralization argue that each defendant manufactures,
markets, and distributes its own baby food products subject to
different manufacturing processes, suppliers, and quality control
procedures and there will undoubtedly be significant differences
between the claims against each defendant.
However, the panel rules that a complete identity or even a
majority of common factual or legal issues is not a prerequisite to
transfer as there will likely will be overlap in the discovery as
to the defendants, who plaintiffs allege had "co-manufacturing"
agreements as to their baby food products and shared third-party
testing agencies. Common expert discovery, as to both plaintiffs
and defendants, also is probable.
"Centralization will facilitate a uniform and efficient pretrial
approach to this litigation, eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent rulings on expert testimony and other pretrial
issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary," adds the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3101-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3102: Four Suits Consolidated in Tithe Mismanagement Row
------------------------------------------------------------
In "In re: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Tithing
Litigation," MDL No. 3102, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one
case each from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, Middle District of Tennessee, District of Utah and the
Eastern District of Washington, all to the District of Utah and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Robert J. Shelby
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All parties
support centralization.
All actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations
that the Church falsely represented that tithes paid by its members
would be used solely for charitable and humanitarian purposes while
instead allowing tithes to accumulate in investment accounts,
hiding the extent of its wealth from Church members, and spending
tithing monies for commercial purposes. In particular, plaintiffs
(current or former Church members) claim that Church leaders
publicly stated that no tithing monies would be used to develop the
City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City, but that such monies
were in fact used for that purpose.
Plaintiffs variously assert claims for fraudulent and negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of state
consumer protection laws. In addition to seeking damages,
plaintiffs in three actions ask that a constructive trust be
created to include all inequitably obtained monies and the proceeds
derived therefrom.
According to the panel, the actions involve common questions of
fact relating to statements made by the Church regarding its
investment and use of tithing funds, the manner in which tithes
have been invested, and the purposes for which they have been
spent. All plaintiffs seek certification of overlapping nationwide
classes. Centralization will avoid duplicative discovery and will
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification, First Amendment issues, expert admissibility
issues, and dispositive motions.
The panel deems the District of Utah as the transferee district as
the Church is headquartered there, and most of the relevant
documents and witnesses will be found there.
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3102-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MDL 3103: Six Suits Transferred to N.D. W. Va.
----------------------------------------------
In "In re: Aflibercept Patent Litigation," MDL No. 3103, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers five cases from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and one
from the Central District of California, all to the Northern
District of West Virginia, and assigning them to the Honorable
Thomas S. Kleeh for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
All actions were brought under the Biologics Price Competition and
Innovation Act (BPCIA). In each action, Regeneron alleges that the
defendant infringed a common set of thirteen U.S. patents covering
its ophthalmic drug, "Eylea (R)," by submitting abbreviated
Biologics License Applications and seeking to market their
follow-on biologic products. Included among those thirteen patents
is one -- the '865 Patent -- that already has been held valid and
infringed by Judge Kleeh after trial in the first filed Northern
District of West Virginia "Mylan" action. Common factual questions
will include whether the proposed biosimilar products infringe the
patents, the evidence related to claim construction, and patent
validity considerations such as the level of ordinary skill in the
art, the scope and content of the prior art, and obviousness.
All defendants oppose centralization. They argue that each action
involves dozens of patents -- a total of 63 across all actions --
and that many non-overlapping patents are asserted against each
defendant. In addition, some of the common patents relate to
manufacturing methods, which defendants claim are unique to each
defendant; thus, they argue, they may have different invalidity and
non-infringement defenses even to the same patents. Defendants also
contend that, because they are competitors and their manufacturing
methods are highly confidential, if the litigation is centralized,
special discovery protections will be necessary. Defendants
maintain that these complexities make this BPCIA litigation
significantly different from litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act
that the panel typically centralizes and would result in an
unmanageable MDL. Given the relatively small number of involved
actions, they argue, centralization is not appropriate.
"These arguments are not persuasive," rules the panel. "Regeneron
asserts a common set of thirteen patents in every action, and every
patent asserted against Amgen also is asserted against at least one
of the Northern District of West Virginia defendants."
The panel opined that the '865 patent, a formulation patent, which
already has been found valid and infringed by Mylan, is asserted
against all defendants and, according to Regeneron, will be central
in every case. Even if there is some variation among defendants'
defenses to certain patents, it seems far more efficient to allow a
single court to construe the patents at issue and to decide whether
injunctive relief is warranted, it adds.
A full-text copy of the court's April 11, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3103-Transfer_Order-3-24.pdf
MEDTORQUE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hess Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTORQUE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00473 (E.D. Wis., April 20, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Hess was employed by the Defendant as a machinist.
MEDTORQUE, INC. is a manufacturer of orthopedic instruments and
implants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that Merritt Healthcare Advisors, a
Connecticut mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory firm for
healthcare practices, has agreed to a $1.525 million settlement of
a class action stemming from a 2022 data breach.
The money will go into a fund to compensate the estimated 88,740
people whose personally identifiable information, private health
information, and/or financial information were exposed in the
breach.
Merritt discovered the security breach on November 30, 2022, and
made it public on March 14, 2023.
The settlement addresses three class actions filed in 2023 in
federal district court for Connecticut that the plaintiffs agreed
to consolidate and resolve through mediation.
"The negotiations leading to the settlement were contentious and
hard-fought," says the settlement proposal submitted to the court.
"The resulting settlement reflects an agreement reached at arm's
length, in good faith, and free of any collusion."
The agreement, which must still be reviewed by the court, includes
a separate amount of $508,283 for the plaintiffs' lawyers, Kevin
Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law and Laura Grace Van Note of Cole & Van
Note. [GN]
OUTFOX HOSPITALITY: Moore Sues Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Angela Hanson of Convenience Store News reports that a former
employee of Foxtrot Market filed a proposed class action lawsuit
against the upscale convenience retailer's parent company, Outfox
Hospitality, one day after it abruptly halted all operations.
Plaintiff Jamil Moore, who worked at a Foxtrot store in Chicago's
Old Town neighborhood, alleges that all employees were terminated
without prior notice, which may violate the federal and state
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, according
to an Axios Chicago report.
The WARN ACT requires most companies with 100 or more employees to
provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of planned
closings and mass layoffs.
Moore, who stated that he was terminated mid-shift the morning of
April 23 along with other employees who lost their jobs without
notice, claims that Outfox Hospitality did not pay out employees'
wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued
vacation pay, and/or accrued personal time off for the required 60
days. The lawsuit is seeking other class-action members.
"The termination of hundreds of employees across the country with
no notice is abhorrent and should be made an example of. Hundreds
in Chicago alone are now without work," Syed Hussain, Moore's
attorney, told USA TODAY. "Employees should never be afraid to
stand up for their rights afforded to them. It takes just a few
brave people to be at the forefront of this litigation and fight
the good fight."
The sudden closing of Foxtrot -- which operated 33 convenience
stores in Chicago, Washington, D.C., Dallas and Austin, Texas, and
two Dom's Kitchen & Market locations -- came less than six months
after the companies announced their merger. Foxtrot cofounder Mike
LaVitola stepped up to lead the combined company.
Earlier this year, Foxtrot was named one of the Top 10 Brands to
Watch in 2024 by data analytics firm Placer.ai.
No specific reason has been given for the shutdown and Outfox
Hospitality has not responded to media requests for comment, but a
message on Dom's website stated that the company "explored many
avenues to continue the business but found no viable option despite
good faith and exhaustive efforts." [GN]
PNC BANK: Spencer Sues Over Unlawful Junk Fees
----------------------------------------------
Marcus Spencer, Scott Chang, Jessica Burgess, Jeffrey Williams, and
Jennifer Mann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No.
2:24-cv-00357-RJC (W.D. Pa., March 18, 2024), is brought under the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") which expressly
prohibit "junk fees" where a business reveals unavoidable fees
later in the buying process.
PNC routinely charges and collects what it refers to as "Return of
Deposited Item Fee" fees. By charging these Return of Deposited
Item fees, PNC unfairly targeted its customers with financial
penalties for faulty checks the customers had no hand in issuing.
Plaintiffs were shocked when they were charged these fees because
they did nothing wrong yet were penalized by PNC. There was nothing
Plaintiffs could do to avoid--or even anticipate--a Return of
Deposited Item fee assessed by PNC at the time the deposit was
returned. By charging its customers significant fees in situations
where the customer did nothing wrong and could not have avoided the
fee through reasonable diligence, PNC acted in a manner that is
unfair, oppressive, lacks good faith and is against public policy.
Recent guidance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
("CFPB") has reaffirmed the unlawful nature of PNC's Return of
Deposited Item fee policy. In October 2022, the CFPB issued a
compliance bulletin stating that it is an unfair act or practice
for an institution to have a blanket policy of charging Return of
Deposited Item fees anytime that a check is returned unpaid,
irrespective of the circumstances or patterns of behavior on the
account; the CFPB noted that these fees cause substantial monetary
injury for each returned item, which consumers cannot reasonably
avoid because they lack information about and control over whether
a check will clear. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and the Class and Sub-classes, now seek to hold PNC
accountable for their unlawful and unfair policy, and seek damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs held a PNC checking account during the applicable
statute of limitations period.
PNC, N.A. is a financial services institution engaged in the
business of providing retail banking services to consumers and
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Pietz, Esq.
Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
John P. Worgul, Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
429 Fourth Avenue
Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-281-8400
Facsimile: 412-281-1007
Email: jpietz@fdpklaw.com
rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com
jworgul@fdpklaw.com
- and -
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: 212-532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: lconsidine@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
PREMIUM APPAREL: Dalton Sues Over ADA Violations in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Apparel LLC.
The case is captioned as JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. PREMIUM APPAREL LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-00815-JMB-DTS (D. Minn., March 8, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Premium Apparel LLC is a clothing company based in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
55376 St. Michael, MN 55330
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
- and -
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC
222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Facsimile: (763) 226-2515
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Franco Files Contract Suit in M.D.N.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company, et al. The case is captioned as MAYRA FRANCO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00225-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C., March 13, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged breach of
insurance contract.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance firm in
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C.
P.O. Box 90698
Raleigh, NC 27675
Telephone: (919) 277-0161
Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
Email: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com
- and -
Kelly Ann Stevens, Esq.
HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C.
5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 277-0161
Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
Email: kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com
RAWLINGS COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over Settlement Proceeds
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Record reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed
against The Rawlings Company and related companies.
The plaintiffs Martin Zakarian and Mary Jones are representing
themselves and others who have similar grievances in the complaint,
which was filed in federal court, against The Rawlings Company LLC,
Rawlings Financial Services, LLC and Rawlings & Associates PLLC.
The plaintiffs allege the defendants improperly calculated Medicare
liens on their settlement proceeds without including an offset for
procurement costs. Zakarian and Jones both paid these liens under
protest. They claim these practices are part of a broader pattern
affecting citizens of Kansas since January 2021 and Missouri
citizens since January 2019 who settled any lawsuit where the
defendants were acting as agents for Medicare.
The court has jurisdiction over this case under the Class Action
Fairness Act as it involves more than 100 members in each proposed
class, with at least one member from a state different from where
the defendants are citizens. The amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.
The defendants are Kentucky-based limited liability companies that
do business as "The Rawlings Group," a claims recovery vendor in
the healthcare industry. They publicly claim to deliver more net
revenue to clients' bottom lines than any other company can
deliver. [GN]
RAYCEN RAINES: Blalock Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raycen Raines, et al.
The case is styled as Shelley Bridges, Lisa Blakemore, Teresa
Lukaszewicz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Raycen Raines, Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation,
WLCC II doing business as: Arrowhead Advance, WLCC Lending BGL
doing business as: Bison Green Lending, WLCC Lending JEM doing
business as: Explore Credit, WLCC Lending FDL doing business as:
Fast Day Loans doing business as: First Day Loan, John Does Nos.
1-40, Case No. 1:24-cv-00087-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C., March 25, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
the Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Raycen Raines started the American Horse Tribal Development company
and the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Gerard Albanese, Esq.
Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Phone: (612) 594-5999
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: jalbanese@bm.net
moconnorgrant@bm.net
- and -
Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Email: josterwise@bm.net
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Zabransky Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. The case is captioned as SUSAN ZABRANSKY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02133-EP-MAH
(D.N.J., March 8, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's breach of contract.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a consumer electronics company
based in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com
rmatloff@nagelrice.com
- and -
John N. Poulos, Esq.
Joseph Lopiccolo, Esq.
Anthony Santos Almeida, Esq.
POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
1305 South Roller Road
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 673-6264
(732) 757-0165
Email: poulos@pllawfirm.com
lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com
almeida@pllawfirm.com
SANDOZ CANADA: Opioids Class Suit Enters Phase Two of Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab of Law Times reports that the Ontario opioids class
action is proceeding to the second phase of certification after the
court dismissed the defendants' motion to strike the claim.
The litigation is part of a nationwide wave of lawsuits brought
against manufacturers of the highly addictive painkillers on behalf
of Canadians suffering from addiction, their families, and public
health insurers.
According to Peter Pliszka, counsel for Sandoz Canada Inc., one of
the defendants, there are four class actions in Canada targeting
the manufacturers and sellers of opioids. One began in BC and is
reeking recovery of the healthcare-related costs incurred due to
opioid use on behalf of BC, other provinces, and the federal
government.
Earlier this month, a class action against 16 pharmaceutical
companies was authorized in Quebec on behalf of people in that
province diagnosed with opioid use disorder since 1996 or their
family members if they are deceased.
Another was launched by Grande Prairie, Alberta, on behalf of all
Canadian municipalities seeking compensation for the costs of
social services incurred by municipalities dealing with the fallout
from the opioid crisis.
Adam Tanel is a partner in Koskie Minsky's class action group and
lawyer for the plaintiff in the Ontario-based lawsuit.
"This is an action and an issue of, frankly, biblical scope," he
says. "The amount of harm visited across the country is just
staggering. It leaves no segment of the Canadian population
untouched."
Tanel says his clients come from "every walk of life" and include
babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome as the result of
their mothers being addicted to opioids while pregnant.
"It's just a horrific toll that has been visited upon Canadians,"
he says. "The only thing commensurate with how terrible the toll is
is how large the profits were that were reaped by the manufacturers
of the opioids -- and, we say, the manufacturers of the epidemic."
Typically, a certification proceeds as one "holistic" motion, says
Tanel. However, the Ontario action was "bifurcated" into two phases
because the defendants brought a motion to strike, arguing the
plaintiffs failed to plead a cause of action. Justice Paul Perell
of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the motion. The defendants
had until last week to bring any further related motions.
Phase one of the certification process dealt with s. 5(1)(a) of the
Class Proceedings Act, under which the court shall certify a class
proceeding if "the pleadings or the notice of application discloses
a cause of action." The parties will now proceed to ss. 5(1)(b) to
(e).
Sandoz is a defendant in the other three class actions among many
other companies.
"Sandoz believes that the claims against that are without any
merit, and Sandoz is vigorously defending against the claims," says
Pliszka, a senior partner in Fasken's litigation group.
In the BC class action brought by the provinces and federal
government, Sandoz has been granted leave to the Supreme Court of
Canada on the issue of whether the proposed action is
unconstitutional. The appeal is set to be heard on May 23 and 24.
In the BC case, says Pliszka, the defendants' position is that the
provinces fail to meet the "common issues" and the "preferable
procedure" elements of the certification test. On common issues, he
says the primary claim asserted by the plaintiffs is that the
companies lied to the medical community about opioids by presenting
them as appropriate to treat long-term, medium-pain conditions and
as carrying a low risk of addiction. Sandoz and the other
defendants argue there is no evidence they represented the drugs in
this way. They are also claiming that the provinces and federal
government lack sufficient commonality for a class action because
the opioids sold in each province, the nature of each province's
illicit market, and the provincial drug plans were different.
In assessing the preferable procedure element, says Pliszka, courts
have found plaintiffs must show the proposed class action serves
three objectives: access to justice, judicial economy, and
ameliorating the defendants' allegedly improper past behaviour. The
defendants argue the proposed class members fall short on all
three.
In the Ontario case, Tanel says phase two of certification will
proceed under a "slightly revised" test because the legislation was
amended.
"This will be, I think, one of the more well-publicized actions
that's decided under the new test that'll deal with issues of
commonality and preferability."
Tanel predicts the defendants will focus their efforts on ss.
5(1)(c) and (d) -- certification requires "the claims or defences
of the class members raise common issues" and "a class proceeding
would be the preferable procedure."
"There's certainly an identifiable class of two or more persons
that would be represented by the representative plaintiff. We now
have a host of representative plaintiffs who fairly and adequately
represent the interests of this class."
"We're confident that that will be successful in that regard." [GN]
SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA JV: Arciga Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JOSE ARCIGA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA JV; SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV08481, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on May 3, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03718 to the
proceeding.
SKANSKA-TRAYLOR-SHEA operates a subway project that will increase
regional mobility and improve connectivity throughout the metro
system, offering travelers a few miles of extension from the
current terminus. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jaime B. Laurent, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
Email: jlaurent@littler.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Heller, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113.2431
Telephone: (408) 998-4150
Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
Email: jheller@littler.com
SP 74 AW CALIFORNIA: United African-Asian Sues Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United African-Asian Abilities Club, on behalf of itself and its
members; JAMES LEE, an individual, and/or others similarly situated
v. SP 74 AW CALIFORNIA OWNER, LLC; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-00593-W-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 27,
2024), is brought under the U.S. Fair Housing Act Amendments of
1988 the federal Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff Lee is a member of the Plaintiff Club. The individual
Plaintiff Lee had specific dates wherein he intended to go the
Defendant's Property to access Defendants' rental services.
Plaintiff Lee has actual knowledge of the overt and obvious
physical and communication barriers at Defendants' Property.
Plaintiff Lee determined that the open and obvious physical
barriers that exist at Defendants' Property directly related to his
disabilities, and that it would be impossible or extremely
difficult for him to physically access Defendants' on-site rental
services.
The Plaintiff Lee had knowledge of access barriers at the Property
and determined that it would be futile gesture for him to go to the
Property on the date that he had intended. The named Individual
Plaintiff Lee was deterred by his actual knowledge of the physical
and communication barriers that exist at Defendants' Property and
also Defendants' website communication barriers. As used herein,
website means any internet website where Defendants control the
content. Plaintiff Lee also attempted to access Defendants' rental
services on Defendants websites but experienced great difficulty
due to Defendants' failure to provide accessible website features,
says the complaint.
The named Individual Plaintiff Lee has hip and knee conditions,
uses a device for mobility, is unable to walk any distance, and
also has a vision disability.
SP 74 AW CALIFORNIA OWNER, LLC and is the operator of the apartment
rental business known as The Grand At Vista Village
Apartments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Wakefield, Esq.
LIGHTNING LAW, APC
10620 Treena Street, Suite 230
San Diego, CA 92131
Phone: 619.485.4300
Facsimile: 619.342.7755
Email: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com
wakefieldlawassistant@gmail.com
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Wiretapping Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western District of Pennsylvania recently granted Spirit
Airlines, Inc. ("Spirit Airlines")'s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to
dismiss a class action brought by a putative class of plaintiffs
who visited Spirit Airlines' website for lack of Article III
standing. Smidga, et al., v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No.
2:22-cv-01578, 2024 WL 1485853 (W.D. Penn. Apr. 5, 2024). The
plaintiffs have now appealed that order to the Third Circuit.
Smidga, et al., v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01578 (W.D.
Penn. filed Apr. 23, 2024).
The plaintiffs alleged that Spirit Airlines deployed sessions
replay software on its website to track, record, and store the
website activity of its visitors, including their mouse movements,
clicks, keystrokes, URL website visits, and other electronic
communications. 2024 WL 1485853, at *1. They brought claims against
Spirit Airlines under the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Act ("MESA"), Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA"), California Invasion of Privacy
Act ("CIPA"), and other corresponding invasion of privacy and state
common law claims. Id.
Spirit Airlines filed a Rule 12(b)(1) facial and factual attack on
the plaintiffs' Article III standing, arguing that (1) they failed
to allege any concrete harm from Spirit Airlines' use of the
software; and (2) no concrete harm actually occurred because the
website did not collect personal identifying information from
website visitors and any data collected was anonymized, per a sworn
declaration from a Spirit Airlines executive. Id. at *2-3.
To establish standing, the plaintiffs were required to allege they
"(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). Even if a plaintiff alleges
statutory violations, Article III standing still requires
sufficient allegations of a "concrete" harm. TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 426 (2021).
The district court summarized cases finding that the collection of
basic contact information, such as email addresses, phone numbers,
and social media usernames, is not a sufficiently concrete harm.
Smidga, 2024 WL 1485853, at *4. As a result, the district court
found that two of the three plaintiffs, who had alleged only the
collection of their basic contact information, suffered no concrete
injury sufficient to support Article III standing. Id. at *5.
By comparison, the third plaintiff did allege that she input her
credit card data into Spirit Airlines' website. Id. at *5. While
the district court found that these allegations survived a facial
attack on jurisdictional standing, the court nonetheless held that
the third plaintiff could not survive a factual attack on Article
III standing because she did not dispute Spirit Airlines' sworn
assertions that it did not collect or record personalized data from
website visitors. Id.
The district court therefore found that all three named plaintiffs
failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient to support Article
III standing, granted Spirit Airlines' Rule 12(b)(1) motion, denied
its corresponding Rule 12(b)(6) motion as moot, and granted the
plaintiffs limited leave to amend their complaint. Id. at *6-7.
After the plaintiffs declined to file an amended complaint, the
district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Smidga, et al., v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No.
2:22-cv-01578 (W.D. Penn. Apr. 22, 2024). The following day, the
plaintiffs noticed their appeal to the Third Circuit.
Takeaways: We will continue to monitor the appeal in Smidga and
other class actions where a party mounts an attack to Article III
standing. The decision in Smidga demonstrates that a wiretapping
and invasion of privacy class must take seriously the requirement
that they allege a sufficiently concrete harm to avoid a facial or
factual attack to Article III standing. [GN]
THOMAS J. VILSACK: Provost Files Suit in D. Columbia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THOMAS J. VILSACK, et
al. The case is styled as Wenceslaus Provost, Jr., Angela Provost,
both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as the SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE and his successors in interest; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; Case No. 1:24-cv-00920-TJK (D.D.C.,
March 29, 2024).
The nature of suit is state as Other Civil Rights for Personal
Injury.
Thomas James Vilsack is an American politician serving as the 32nd
United States secretary of agriculture in the Biden
administration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Macdonald, Esq.
Ariel C. Green Anaba, Esq.
Luis Li, Esq.
Mark Yohalem, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
953 East Third Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (323) 210-2900
Email: matthew.macdonald@wsgr.com
aanaba@wsgr.com
luis.li@wsgr.com
myohalem@wsgr.com
- and -
Constandinos Himonas, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
15 W. South Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 971-4544
Email: dhimonas@wsgr.com
- and -
Luke Anthony Liss, Esq.
WSGR
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: (650) 493-9300
Email: lliss@wsgr.com
- and -
Robin S Crauthers, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI
1700 K Street, Suite 4/31
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (314) 359-6563
Email: rcrauthers@wsgr.com
TORRID LLC: Faces Class Action Over False Sale Prices Online
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Torrid
faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the fashion
retailer has misled shoppers by posting false sale prices on its
website, leading consumers to mistakenly believe they're getting a
deal.
The 42-page lawsuit claims that the Torrid, Torrid Curve, CURV and
Lovesick clothing at issue has been advertised with "false,
misleading, and inflated comparison reference prices," which serve
to deceive consumers into believing that the stated sale price on
Torrid.com is a discounted bargain price. Per the case, Torrid's
purportedly limited-time sitewide or nearly sitewide sales are
misleading in that they never expire.
"[W]hen one sale expires, another similar sale is promptly
instituted, or the sale never ends," the lawsuit reads. "This cycle
continues over and over."
At the end of the day, Torrid's online "sales" practices deceive
consumers into spending money they otherwise would not have spent,
the case argues.
The truth, the suit claims, is that the purported strike-through
discounts on Torrid's site are not representative of any former
"regular price" at which a product was offered for any period of
time because a given item "has not been listed for sale or sold on
the website, in the recent past and for a substantial time," at
that purported regular price.
"Anyone visiting the website who buys an item on ‘sale' from a
stricken former or regular price is being misled," the class action
lawsuit alleges. "So too is anyone who buys an item on sale using
an automatically or manually applied coupon code."
According to the complaint, all, or nearly all, of the reference
prices on Torrid.com are false and misleading, as they are simply
"inflated prices posted to lure consumers into purchasing items."
Beyond that, the filing says, Torrid's products sold online have
both a lower market value than what consumers are led to believe
and a lower value than the posted discounted "sale" price.
Ultimately, Torrid's use of false reference prices online
artificially drives up demand for its products, "and by extension
drives up the price of the products," the case contends.
The filing says that Torrid's apparent false reference pricing
practice is not a new or isolated tactic but has continued
regularly since at least 2020 and probably earlier.
The Torrid class action lawsuit looks to cover all persons
nationwide who bought one or more items from Torrid.com during the
applicable statute of limitations period at a discount from a
higher reference price. [GN]
TOWNEBANK: Pines Horse Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TowneBank. The case
is styled as The Pines Horse Farm & Sanctuary, LLC, Pearl and Bros
Enterprises LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. TowneBank, Case No. 2:24-cv-00181-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va.,
March 19, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
TowneBank -- https://www.townebank.com/ -- is a company built on
relationships, offering a full range of banking and other financial
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Devon James Munro, Esq.
MUNRO BYRD P.C.
120 Day Ave. SW
First Floor
Roanoke, VA 24016
Phone: (540) 283-9343
Fax: (540) 328-9290
Email: dmunro@trialsva.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Goldstein FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is captioned as ISAAC GOLDSTEIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01729-PK (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems Inc. is a debt collection firm doing business in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
TRUEACCORD CORP: Ryder Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is captioned as MORGAN RYDER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. TRUEACCORD CORP., Case No.
0:24-cv-60399-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 13, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
TrueAccord Corp. is a debt collection agency based in Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
(954) 628-5793
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
UBER EATS: Faces Class Suit in Las Vegas Over Imposter Restaurants
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Haas, writing for 8 News Now reports that a class action
lawsuit filed against Uber Eats, delivery drivers and "imposter"
restaurants includes racketeering allegations that dishonest
operations have been going on for years.
Four restaurant companies -- Esther's Kitchen, Babystacks Cafe,
Manizza's Pizza and Gaetano's Ristorante -- are suing to recover
damages lost to companies that made and sold food using their
business names, all with the ongoing cooperation of Uber Eats and
their delivery drivers, according to the lawsuit. Uber Eats
pocketed 30% on every transaction and failed to investigate whether
the imposter restaurants were who the said they were, the lawsuit
alleges.
This week, 8 News Now reported how the owner of Manizza's Pizza
caught another business in the act impersonating her brand to fill
an order.
Uber Eats said they have paused all new applications for virtual
kitchens in the Las Vegas valley and is now requiring new
businesses to provide business licenses and proof of a physical
address.
The lawsuit estimates that at least 1,000 restaurants in the valley
have been victimized, and seeks damages in excess of $15,0000 for
each of those companies. Allegations of additional damages are also
detailed in the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in Clark County
District Court.
Plaintiffs represented by Bighorn Law, a North Las Vegas law firm,
argue that Uber Eats allows virtual kitchens to impersonate
restaurants -- deliberately.
"The Uber Defendants set the app up in this manner intentionally to
harm small restraint businesses, including Plaintiffs, in an effort
to take up more of the local restaurant market share as these local
restaurants were pushed out due to the impact of this fraud and
conversion," the lawsuit alleges.
The setup "resulted in parties creating false identities that
co-opted known restaurants brands and identities . . . and allowed
unknown individuals to siphon business for themselves using the
goodwill created by the actual business owners," according to the
lawsuit.
The drivers are complicit because they knew the food was not coming
from the actual restaurant listed in the app, the lawsuit argues.
The lawsuit names Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Uber Eats
territory lead Berchman Melancon, two Uber Eats drivers identified
only as Nick and Karina, and additional people and companies yet to
be identified.
Allegations include fraud, conversion, defamation and negligence,
arguing that the actions qualify as racketeering under Nevada's
RICO statutes. Racketeering laws were widely used to combat
organized crime activities. [GN]
VIRGINIA FARM: Haynes Files Personal Property Suit in E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia Farm Bureau
Mutual Insurance Company. The case is captioned as CAROL HAYNES, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:24-cv-00175-HEH (E.D. Va., March 8, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal property claims against the
Defendant.
Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance firm
based in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
WALMART INC: Argenzio Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Product
------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE ARGENZIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-03302 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
market and sell mislabeled its sunscreen Equate brand.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the description of the
Product as "Reef Friendly" is "false or misleading," because its
active and inactive ingredients, including avobenzone, homosalate,
octisalate, and octocrylene, are harmful to coral reefs, causing it
to be "misbranded."
Nowhere on the labeling does the Product tell purchasers that its
active and inactive ingredients, including avobenzone, homosalate,
octisalate, and octocrylene, are harmful to reefs and not "reef
friendly." As a result of the false and misleading representations,
the Product is sold at a premium price, says the suit.
WALMART INC. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as
apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical
instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler,
games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party
supplies, and automotive tools. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WELLS FARGO: Beloff Files Personal Property Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank NA.
The case is captioned as SAMUEL BELOFF, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, Case No.
3:24-cv-01522-MMC (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal property claims against the
Defendant.
Wells Fargo Bank NA is a financial services company doing business
in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alisa Rose Adams, Esq.
DANN LAW
26100 Towne Center Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Telephone: (216) 926-0065
Email: aadams@dannlaw.com
- and -
Mark Louis Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
3 East 3rd Ave., Ste. 200
San Mateo, CA 94401
Telephone: (650) 781-8000
Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
WELLS FARGO: Oberly Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo &
Company, et al. The case is styled as Carey Runzel Oberly,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No.
3:24-cv-01883-TLT (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paula R. Brown, Esq.
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
Email: pbrown@bholaw.com
tblood@bholaw.com
WHOLE FOODS: Yount Sues Over Omitted Wage Scale in Job Postings
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE YOUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC.,
a foreign profit corporation doing business as WHOLE FOODS MARKET;
WFM-WO, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as WHOLE
FOODS MARKET; WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit
corporation doing business as WHOLE FOODS MARKET; and DOES 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 24-2-05738-2 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty.,
March 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
failing to disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered in
its job postings in violation of the Washington Equal Pay and
Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58.110.
Ms. Yount resides in King County, Washington and applied to work
for the Defendants at their store located in Washington.
Whole Foods Market Pacific Northwest, Inc., doing business as Whole
Foods Market, is a food market store operator and owner in
Washington.
WFM-WO, Inc., doing business as Whole Foods Market, is a food
market store operator and owner in Washington.
Whole Foods Market Services, Inc., doing business as Whole Foods
Market, is a food market store operator and owner in Washington.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-9106
Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
*********
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 ***