Latest news with #Defendants'
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Ex-‘Doctor Odyssey' Crew Members Sue Disney, Fox Claiming Sexual Harassment And Wrongful Termination
Three former members of the props department on ABC's medical drama Doctor Odyssey filed a lawsuit Friday against the network's parent company Disney and producer 20th Television's parent Fox, alleging they were subject to sexual harassment on the set of the series and eventually retaliated against and terminated when they complained about it. The suit, filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, says the plaintiffs — Caroline Mack, Alicia Haverland and Ava Steinbrenner — were hired in late spring/early summer 2024 to work in the new series' props department. The defendants then hired Tammie Patton as Prop Master and her husband Tyler Patton as Assistant Prop Master who supervised and directed the plaintiffs in their work. More from Deadline 'Doctor Odyssey' Finale Upbeat With No Hint Of A Future On The High Seas ABC Chief Provides 'Doctor Odyssey' Status Update Marvel Skipping Comic-Con's Hall H This Year The suit claims the props department 'was an unlawful den of sexual harassment and retaliation,' and that the plaintiffs were subject to 'an an unchecked campaign of sexual harassment for months' by 'Taylor Patton and his male buddies.' The behavior cited in the lawsuit (read it here) allegedly included 'sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, sexual gestures and images, and unwanted touching including, but not limited to: (i) regularly giving Plaintiffs unwanted, lingering hugs; (ii) touching one of the Plaintiff's thighs; (iii) frequently placing his hands on one of the Plaintiff's lower back; (iv) placing his arms around Plaintiffs' necks and forcing them to 'walk with him;' and (v) openly grabbing a visiting female employee's buttocks on set.' The suit said the plaintiffs eventually went to senior production members to report the misconduct including Tammie Patton, and say they were retaliated against by being forced to do demeaning tasks, and having their jobs threatened. 'Even though Defendants' Human Resources Department and Senior Management assigned to Dr. Odyssey were fully aware of Tyler Patton's inappropriate behavior and the retaliation his wife/Plaintiffs' boss Tammie Patton engaged in, they took no action to prevent it,' says the suit. 'In fact, Defendants' human resources was asleep at the wheel and permitted the frustrated managers/producers on set to handle these conflicts on their own. This led to Plaintiffs suffering additional mistreatment, retaliation, and emotional distress.' In the end, the plaintiffs say that rather than taking action against the alleged harassers, the defendants informed the entire props department in August that it was being terminated. That became effective at the end of September. 'Defendants took the 'easy' way out choosing to eliminate not only the wrongdoers — Prop Master Tammie Patton and Assistant Prop Master Tyler Patton — but all of the remaining employees in the Props Department who had been subject to the wrongdoers' misconduct,' the suit says. As a result, the plaintiffs are claiming wrongful termination in addition to claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. The suit also cites negligent hiring on the part of Disney, Fox and co-defendant Entertainment Partners, saying the defendants knew Tyler Patton had been subject to similar accusations and lawsuit on the set of the mid-2000s Fox medical drama series House. 'Notably, there was some overlap between employees on Dr. Odyssey and employees on the set of House,' the suit says. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial. Doctor Odyssey, from Ryan Murphy and starring Joshua Jackson and Don Johnson, debuted its first season in September and is on the bubble for a Season 2 pickup. It was not on ABC's fall 2025 schedule when that was announced earlier this month at the broadcast upfronts. Best of Deadline Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds 'Poker Face' Season 2 Guest Stars: From Katie Holmes To Simon Hellberg 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Urges Judge Not To Dismiss CBS '60 Minutes' Lawsuit As Paramount And POTUS Teams Talk Settlement
Donald Trump's legal team made its latest filing in his lawsuit against CBS as settlement negotiations continue between network parent Paramount and the president's team. Sources said that an opening offer to Trump has been made, in the eight figures, but that the discussions are still in the early stages. More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Elon Musk Bids Farewell As Official Trump Administration Role Comes To An End Fox News Continued To See Audience Growth In May While MSNBC And CNN Posted Double-Digit Declines Vs. 2024 Meanwhile, Trump's team faced a deadline on Wednesday to file a response to CBS' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Trump sued the network over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris, part of an election special that was broadcast in October. In a preview of the segment that aired on Face the Nation on October 6, Harris was shown giving an answer to a question about Israel-Gaza that was different than the one that was featured on the 60 Minutes broadcast the next day. Trump claimed that the broadcast was deceptive in a way to boost Harris' electoral chances. His amended, $20 billion lawsuit, filed in February, claimed violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the federal Lanham Act, laws typically used by consumers against false advertising. Trump contended that the interview 'improperly diverted' traffic from his media platforms, including Truth Social. In a motion to dismiss, CBS argued that the 60 Minutes preview and broadcast were not commercial speech, but news programming protected by the First Amendment. The network also has denied that the 60 Minutes edits were deceptive and merely made for time constraints, noting that the first part of Harris' answer was shown on the Face the Nation preview and the second for the show's broadcast. In their latest filing, made overnight to a federal district court in Texas, Trump's legal team argued that determining 'that the First Amendment precludes the instant lawsuit would put the cart before the horse—the First Amendment is no shield to news distortion.' Trump's lawyers wrote that 'because they were misled by Defendants' false advertising and tampering with the entirety of the Interview, viewers withheld attention from President Trump and Truth Social by directing their attention to Defendants' media platforms. This increased Defendants' engagement, viewership, and advertising revenue, and decreased the value of President Trump's ownership in TMTG and other media holdings.' Read Trump's response to CBS in 60 Minutes lawsuit. They further added that Trump 'was forced to re-direct significant time, money, and effort to correcting the public record regarding the content of the Interview and Election Special.' A number of legal experts see the lawsuit as meritless. Katie Couric, the former anchor of CBS Evening News, called it 'bulls—' in a recent interview with Jim Acosta, the former CNN host and correspondent. And based on a transcript of the unedited interview, neither part of Harris' answer is clear. But Paramount Global is seeking Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media, and a settlement of the lawsuit is viewed as a way to secure a green light for the transaction. In his interview with Harris, 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker asked her why Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not listening to the Biden administration. Harris replied, 'Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris' answer was shown on the 60 Minutes broadcast; the first part was shown on Face the Nation. But in arguing that they were harmed by the broadcast, Trump's team wrote that merely 'having access to Defendants' services does not mean that a consumer would have watched the Election Special even without Defendants' deceptive advertising of it. Harris's meandering answer in the Preview was engaging in much the same way one cannot look away from a car crash happening in slow motion.' The Face the Nation preview was aired during the show, not during an advertising break. But Trump's team argued that CBS' legal team, in their motion to dismiss, 'neglects to reckon with modern forms of advertising monetization; the consumers' attention is the product which content creators vie for, which they can then monetize with advertisements.' In another filing, Trump's legal team also argued that the Texas court, rather than New York, was a proper venue for the litigation, as CBS had argued that the president was engaged in forum shopping. In his amended lawsuit, Trump added a resident of the state as plaintiff – Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), the former White House physician. The federal judge assigned to the case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was nominated by Trump in his first term. During Joe Biden's presidency, conservative groups sought to file cases in his Amarillo jurisdiction, seeking favorable rulings, per the Texas Tribune. In April, Kacsmaryk noted that he already had granted five deadline extensions for filings in the case, and that any further extensions would have to 'demonstrate good cause.' Best of Deadline 'The Morning Show' Season 4: Everything We Know So Far 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Urges Judge Not To Dismiss CBS '60 Minutes' Lawsuit As Paramount And POTUS Teams Talk Settlement
Donald Trump's legal team made its latest filing in his lawsuit against CBS, as settlement negotiations continue between network parent Paramount and the president's team. Sources said that an opening offer to Trump has been made, in the eight figures, but that the discussions are still in the early stages. More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Elon Musk Bids Farewell As Official Trump Administration Role Comes To An End Fox News Continued To See Audience Growth In May While MSNBC And CNN Posted Double-Digit Declines Vs. 2024 Meanwhile, Trump's team faced a deadline on Wednesday to file a response to CBS' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Trump sued the network over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris, as part of an election special that was broadcast in October. In a preview of the segment that aired on Face the Nation on October 6, Harris was shown giving an answer to a question about Israel-Gaza that was different than the one that was featured on the 60 Minutes broadcast the next day. Trump claimed that the broadcast was deceptive in a way to boost Harris' electoral chances. His amended, $20 billion lawsuit, filed in February, claimed violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the federal Lanham Act, laws typically used by consumers against false advertising. Trump contended that the interview 'improperly diverted' traffic from his media platforms, including Truth Social. In a motion to dismiss, CBS argued that the 60 Minutes preview and broadcast were not commercial speech, but news programming protected by the First Amendment. The network also has denied that the 60 Minutes edits were deceptive and merely for time constraints, noting that the first part of Harris' answer was shown on the Face the Nation preview and the second for the show's broadcast. In their latest filing, Trump's legal team argued that determining 'that the First Amendment precludes the instant lawsuit would put the cart before the horse—the First Amendment is no shield to news distortion.' Trump's lawyers wrote that 'because they were misled by Defendants' false advertising and tampering with the entirety of the Interview, viewers withheld attention from President Trump and Truth Social by directing their attention to Defendants' media platforms. This increased Defendants' engagement, viewership, and advertising revenue, and decreased the value of President Trump's ownership in TMTG and other media holdings.' Read Trump's response to CBS in 60 Minutes lawsuit. They further added that Trump 'was forced to re-direct significant time, money, and effort to correcting the public record regarding the content of the Interview and Election Special.' A number of legal experts see the lawsuit as meritless. Katie Couric, the former anchor of CBS Evening News, called it 'bulls—' in a recent interview with Jim Acosta, the former CNN host and correspondent. Neither part of Harris' answer is clear. But Paramount Global is seeking Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media, and a settlement of the lawsuit is viewed as a way to secure a green light for the transaction. In his interview with Harris, 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker asked her why Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not listening to the Biden administration. Harris replied, 'Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris' answer was shown on the 60 Minutes broadcast; the first part was shown on Face the Nation. But in arguing consumer harm, Trump's team wrote that merely 'having access to Defendants' services does not mean that a consumer would have watched the Election Special even without Defendants' deceptive advertising of it. Harris's meandering answer in the Preview was engaging in much the same way one cannot look away from a car crash happening in slow motion.' The Face the Nation preview was aired during the show, not during an advertising break. But Trump's team argued that CBS' legal team, in their motion to dismiss, 'neglects to reckon with modern forms of advertising monetization; the consumers' attention is the product which content creators vie for, which they can then monetize with advertisements.' In another filing, Trump's legal team also argued that the Texas court, rather than New York, was a proper venue for the litigation, as CBS had argued that the president was engaged in forum shopping. The federal judge assigned to the case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was nominated by Trump in his first term. During Joe Biden's presidency, conservative groups sought to file cases in his Amarillo jurisdiction, seeking favorable rulings, per the Texas Tribune. Best of Deadline 'The Morning Show' Season 4: Everything We Know So Far 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Malaysian Reserve
18-05-2025
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
RKT INVESTOR ALERT: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC Announces that Rock Holdings, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit
NEW YORK, May 18, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Attorney Advertising– Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Rock Holdings, Inc. ('RHI' or 'the Company') (NYSE: RKT) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Rocket Companies, Inc. ('Rocket') Class A common stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period'). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: Case Details The Complaint alleges that while in possession of material, non-public, adverse information, Defendant RHI on March 29, 2021, sold 20,200,000 shares of Rocket Class A common stock at $24.75 per unit, for total proceeds of $499.95 million. The Complaint adds that class members purchased Rocket stock contemporaneously with the Defendants' sale of stock without access to this material, non-public, adverse information, and suffered damages. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in RHI you have until July 8, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, or Instagram. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. ContactBronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLCPeretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller332-239-2660 | info@
Associated Press
15-05-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
DEADLINE ALERT for LPRO, CIVI, WST, and DMRC: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Class Actions on Behalf of Shareholders
LOS ANGELES, May 15, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to [email protected]. Open Lending Corporation (NASDAQ: LPRO ) Class Period: February 24, 2022 – March 31, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 30, 2025 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants: (1) misrepresented the capabilities of the Company's risk-based pricing models; (2) issued materially misleading statements regarding the Company's profit share revenue; (3) failed to disclose the Company's 2021 and 2022 vintage loans had become worth significantly less than their corresponding outstanding loan balances; (4) misrepresented the underperformance of the Company's 2023 and 2024 vintage loans; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you are an Open Lending shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. Civitas Resources, Inc. (NYSE: CIVI ) Class Period: February 27, 2024 – February 24, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 1, 2025 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Civitas was highly likely to significantly reduce its oil production in 2025 as a result of, inter alia, declines following the production peak at the DJ Basin in the fourth quarter of 2024 and a low TIL count at the end of 2024; (2) increasing its oil production would require the Company to acquire additional acreage and development locations, thereby incurring significant debt and causing the Company to sell corporate assets to offset its acquisition costs; (3) the Company's financial condition would require it to implement disruptive cost reduction measures including a significant workforce reduction; (4) accordingly, Civitas's business and/or financial prospects, as well as its operational capabilities, were overstated; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you are a Civitas shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (NYSE: WST ) Class Period: February 16, 2023 – February 12, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2025 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) despite claiming strong visibility into customer demand and attributing headwinds to temporary COVID-related product destocking, West was in fact experiencing significant and ongoing destocking across its high-margin HVP portfolio; (2) West's SmartDose device, which was purportedly positioned as a high-margin growth product, was highly dilutive to the Company's profit margins due to operational inefficiencies; (3) these margin pressures created the risk of costly restructuring activities, including the Company's exit from continuous glucose monitoring ('CGM') contracts with long-standing customers; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you are a West Pharmaceuticals shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. Digimarc Corporation (NASDAQ: DMRC ) Class Period: May 3, 2024 – February 26, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 8, 2025 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that a large commercial partner would not renew a large contract on the same terms; (2) that, as a result, Digimarc would renegotiate the large commercial contract; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's subscription revenue and annual recurring revenue would be adversely affected; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you are a Digimarc shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. Follow us for updates on Twitter: To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to [email protected], or visit our website at If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 [email protected]
