/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210601.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 103 Headlines 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Mediation Over Membership Fees Suit Ongoing 8X8 INC: Joint Mediation in Rivas PAGA Suit Set for September ACER THERAPEUTICS: Agreement in Principle Reached in Skiadas Suit ADAM GINSBERG: Bittlingmeyer Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages AENZA SAA: Final Approval of Settlement in 2017 Suit Pending AGEAGLE AERIAL: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Lopez Suit Pending AGEAGLE AERIAL: Continues to Defend Madrid Class Suit AIRESPA WORLDWIDE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Narrows Claims in N-N Class Suit ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Briefing on Class Certification Stayed in Perry ALTA DEVICES: Class of Employees Certified in Gunderson Suit AMAZON LOGISTICS: Bell Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas AMAZON.COM: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30 AMERICAN GOLF: Marciano Sues Over Illegal Retention of Gratuities ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK: Caldwell's Amended Class Complaint Tossed ARCIMOTO INC: Barnette Suit Over Drop in Share Price Underway BANK OF AMERICA: Cardholders Class Gets Provisional Certification BAY MOUNTAIN: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages BERMAN & RABIN: Faces Barwick Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection BIGGS & GREENSLADE: Can Compel Arbitration in Dean FDCPA-TDCA Suit BLUE DIAMOND: Biegel Suit Wins Initial Class Cert. for Settlement BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Porter Sues Over Misleading Advertising BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Carlson Class Action Underway BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Class Suit Fully Repaid BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Gender Bias Suit Awaits Preliminary OK CALIFORNIA FISH GRILL: Sarmiento Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CANOO INC: Faces Stockholders Putative Class Suits in California CAPITAL ONE: Sends Unwanted Robocalls, Smith Suit Alleges CENTERSTATE BANK: Joint Bid to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Boumaiz Bid for Class Certification Tossed CHESTER, PA: Class Settlement in Pitney Suit Gets Final Approval CHINACACHE INT'L: August 27 Final Settlement Approval Hearing CLASSICA CRUISE: $875K Settlement in Janicijevic Suit Has Final OK CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway COMMUNITY PRESERVATION: Jackson Sues Over Breach of Warranty CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: HEI Suit Removed to District of Colorado CREDENCE RESOURCE: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in D. Oregon CREE INC: Wedra Seeks to Extend Class Certification Briefing Sched CULTURAL CARE: Class Cert. Bid Response Extended to June 9 DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Denial of Plea in Abatement in Daniels Reversed DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Faces Rosencrants Class Action DEDICATED NURSING: Underpays Healthcare Employees, Fortin Claims DENNY'S INC: Wintjen Suit Seeks to Certify Pennsylvania Class DENTAL EQUITIES: Court Reopens Scoma Class Suit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must File Reply on Class Cert. Bid by June 15 DIXIE GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Georgia DNH/ML EMPOWER: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Sept. 8 DOUG SCHULTE: Bid to Continue Class Certification Hearing Sustained EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss Garfield Class Suit Pending EBIX INC: Teifke Putative Class Action Underway EDUCATION & ENTERTAINMENT: Warner TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. EL TORO LOCO: Ceja Files Suit in California Superior Court ENTERPRISE LEASING: Benson Bid to Certify Class Partially Granted EPIC LANDSCAPE: Ordered to Produce Albelo Class Records by June 3 EVMO INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Stayed EVMO INC: Rung and Vanbecelaere Suits Stayed EXP REALTY: Wright Suit Seeks to Certify Class FAST AC: Court Junks Walters Class Suit without Prejudice FISHER INVESTMENTS: Bryant Must File Class Status Bid by Oct. 6 FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dubose Must File Bid for Class Cert. by Sept. 22 FLIRT NY: Bid to Dismiss Nikonov Disability Bias Claim Tossed FORTRESS BIOTECH: Cushman Putative Securities Class Suit Underway FPI MANAGEMENT: Archibeque Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GEETA BROWN: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to Nov. 22 GEICO INDEMNITY: McCoy Has Until July 30 to File Class Cert. Bid GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Bossart Class Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Court OK's Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid GENERAL MOTORS: Hackler Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid GRAND CANYON: Bid to Certify Class in Miller RICO-ACFA Suit Denied GREENSPOON MARDER: Initial OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought GRIFFIN ORGANICS: Court Approves Settlement in Artiega Wage Suit GSE SYSTEMS: $15K Remains to be Paid in Joyce Suit Settlement HONEY BLOSSOM: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 1 IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid to Nix NY Putative Class Suit Pending IANTHUS CAPITAL: TCPA Related Class Suit vs. IEH Dismissed IDEANOMICS INC: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending IDEANOMICS INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Rudani Suit IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Odeh Must File Class Status Bid by August 25 INFINITY INSURANCE: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California INFORMATION RESOURCES: Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought INNOVATIVE GARDENING: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Wages Class Certified in Myers FLSA Suit J-M MANUFACTURING: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. J.T. PIERCE PLUMBING: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JACOB KOSTECKI: Gentry Must File Bid for Class Cert. by July 19 JAGUAR HEALTH: Final Approval of Plant Settlement Pending JAMES DOLAN: Hollywood Firefighters Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Brooks Says Collection Letter "Deceptive" JENNY JN: Seeks June 18 Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid JOHN WETZEL: Must File Response to Brown Class Certification Bid KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Junks Baltas Class Suit w/o Prejudice KNIGHT TRANS: LaCross Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Seeks to Certify Class of ESOP Participants LIBRARY SYSTEMS: Settlement Deal in Khaled Suit Gets Initial OK LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Initial Certification of Settlement Class Sought LIFE INSURANCE: Class Certification Sought in PFA Marketing Suit LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Ryan Putative Class Suit Dismissed LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Shingote Putative Class Suit Junked LIN'S GARDEN: Hong Seeks to Certify Non-Managerial Employee Class LIN'S GARDEN: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by June 1 LOBSTER BAR: June 7 Response Time to Conditional Cert. Bid Sought LOGAN VIEW: Davidson Seeks to Certify FDCPA & CSPA Classes LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to June 1 LOUISIANA: June 18 Extension to Respond to Amended Complaint Sought MAJESTIC DUDE: Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Extended to June 30 MDL 2543: Ruling on Attys.' Fees & Costs in GM Switch Suit Issued MICROSOFT CORP: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30 MIDLAND CREDIT: Schwebel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York MIDLAND CREDIT: Sofer Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey MIDLAND CREDIT: Wetzler Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practice MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION: Court Junks Stipulation to Stay Patton Suit MILBERG LLP: District of Arizona Certifies Class in Bobbitt Suit MUD WTR INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sept 22 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd NCR CORPORATION: Achilles Suit Removed to D. Connecticut NEO TECHNOLOGY: July 1 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd NETFLIX INC: New Boston VSPA Suit Seeks Class Certification NEW HORIZON: Extension to Reply to Class Cert Opposition Sought NEW PEOPLES BANK: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Virginia NEW YORK ELEGANT: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Landsdown Files Suit in D. South Carolina NIELLO MOTOR: Mcguckin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NOOM INC: Bid to Compel Sampling Protocol in Nichols Partly Granted NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Class Certification Hearing Set for July 12 OAKLAND, CA: Opposition to Class Certification Bid Due June 18 OHIO RENAL: Freeman Conditional Certification Bid Due August 25 OPINEL USA: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York OREGON DOC: Menefee Action Stayed Pending Resolution in Maney OREGON DOC: Seeks Stay of Albrecht Case Pending Resolution in Maney OREGON DOC: Seeks to Stay Yocum Case Pending Resolution in Maney OUTLAW LAB: Reply to Skyline Class Certification Bid Due June 1 PACKAGED SEAFOOD: Initial Approval Bids in Antitrust Suit Tossed PARKING REIT: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 16 PARKING REIT: Settlement Hearing on Magowski Suit Set for July 16 PASCHALL TRUCK: Seeks Oral Argument for Rule 23 Class Cert. Bid PAUL KEMPER: Shaw Suit Files Bid for Class Certification PHILADELPHIA, PA: Eastman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Trial Not Needed in Guzman Suit PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Sagastume Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Amended Complaint Drops Class Allegations QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: CA Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 10 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sept. 10 Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Sought R&R EXPRESS: Rood Seeks to Strike Late Response to Class Cert. Bid RADIUS GLOBAL: Dunlap Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection RAZVAN POP: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due August 16 READING INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Brown & Wagner Class Lawsuits RENEE'S GARDEN: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RESURGENT CAPITAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Fontaine FDCPA Suit RESURGENT CAPITAL: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines OK'd ROMEO POWER: California Wage & Hour Class Suit Still Stayed ROMEO POWER: Faces Toner Class Action in New York ROMEO POWER: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set for July 15 ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Seeks to Certify Class of Deliver Drivers RT INC: Faces Camp Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime RUMPKE TRANS: Bid to Limit Certification Discovery Junked RYAN ROHLF: Sundermann Must Supplement Class Cert. Bid by June 2 SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order on Garth Suit SHEF INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Cullen Class Suit SILVER FERN: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIMM ASSOCIATES: Sazonoff Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware SIRIUS XM: Sawyer Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 25, 2022 SNAP FINANCE: Extension to File Reply for Class Cert. Bid Sought SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Henderson SPARK NETWORKS: Cyber Security Related Suit Stayed SPECTRANETICS CORP: Second Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed SPRINGFIELD, MA: Asks Court to Amend May 5, 2021 Order in O'Neill SQUARE A CONSTRUCTION: Giron Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification SYMETRA LIFE: Fails to Pay Claims Examiners' OT, Blier Suit Claims T-MOBILE USA: Chetwood et al., Seeks $2MM Class Settlement TARGET CORPORATION: Bid for Class Certification Continued to June 7 TD AMERITRADE: Bartle Suit Seeks Class Certification TERRA TECH: Bid to Dismiss Stanley Putative Class Suit Pending THERMO TECH: Bid for FLSA Conditional Class Certification Sought THESAN USA: Zhejiang Files Amended Bid for Default Judgment TOGETHER CREDIT: Settlement Deal in Chambers Suit Gets Final Nod U.S. BANCORP: Pension Plan Beneficiaries Class Cert. Bid Tossed UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Irving Suit UNICO AMERICAN: Unit Faces Anchors & Whales Putative Class Suit UNITED VALET: Ascencio Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due UNUM GROUP: Class of Specialists Conditionally Certified in Loomis VANDA PHARMA: Gordon Must Serve Class Cert. Report by July 30 VELODYNE LIDAR: Discovery Ongoing in Employment Related Class Suit VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Putative Securities Class Actions VENUS CONCEPT: IPO-Related Litigation Underway VERO BEACH, FL: Seeks to Extend Response Time to Class Cert. Bid VYSTAR CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in LaChapelle Suit WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 7 WASHINGTON DOC: Plaintiffs Win Provisional Class Certification WEST COVINA: Bustillos Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages WEST ROAD: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 12 WEST VIRGINIA: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Fain v. WVDHHR Suit WESTCO CHEMICALS: Court Moots Draney Pending Bid to Certify Class WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. Comerica Bank XL FLEET: Suh and Kumar Putative Class Suits Underway XO GLOBAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York XPRESSPA GROUP: Finalization of Collins Settlement Underway YWL USA: Attorney's Fee Award Reduced to $17K in Wan Suit ********* 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Mediation Over Membership Fees Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- 1Life Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that mediation is ongoing in the class action suit related to its collection of Annual Membership Fee. In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed by two former members against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the Company made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying the Annual Membership Fee, or AMF in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel the plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, which motion was granted as to one plaintiff and denied as to the other. The Company is appealing the denial of its motion to compel arbitration and filed its appellate brief in November 2019. An arbitrator conducted arbitration between the Company and one of the plaintiffs, and in June 2020, issued a decision that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable against that plaintiff. The Company filed its challenge to the arbitrator's decision in August 2020. The trial court upheld the arbitrator's decision, and the appellate court denied the Company's writ petition for review. The Company answered the complaint as to the plaintiff in November 2020, denying the allegations and asserting various defenses. During the first quarter of 2021, the Company and the plaintiffs participated in court-ordered mediation. The parties are working towards a settlement agreement and are continuing to discuss settlement terms. In light of the early stage of the settlement negotiations, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss. Legal fees, net of amounts recoverable from the Company's insurance provider, have been recorded as general and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Additional attorneys' fees in excess of those covered will be expensed as incurred. 1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers in the United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California. 8X8 INC: Joint Mediation in Rivas PAGA Suit Set for September ------------------------------------------------------------- 8X8 Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the joint mediation in the class action and the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) lawsuit complaint initiated by Denise Rivas, is scheduled on September 2021. On September 21, 2020, the Company received a copy of a letter filed by a former employee, Plaintiff Denise Rivas, with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) providing notice of the Plaintiff's intent to bring a PAGA claim, on behalf of the Company's non-exempt employees based in California, for alleged California wage and hour practices violations. On September 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a separate class action complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Company in which she alleges 10 causes of action, on behalf of herself and all of the Company's non-exempt employees based in California for the last four years, related to violations of California state wage and hour practices and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Class Complaint was served on the Company on September 29, 2020. On October 28, 2020, the Company filed a general denial of all claims and asserted various affirmative defenses. On October 29, 2020, the Company removed the matter to Federal Court. On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a companion PAGA lawsuit complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Company, in which she alleges 6 violations of California state wage and hour practices for all of the Company's current and former non-exempt employees based in California from September 16, 2019 to the present. The PAGA Complaint was served on the Company on December 11, 2020. On January 26, 2021, the Company filed a general denial of all claims and asserted various affirmative defenses to the PAGA Complaint. Both actions are scheduled for a joint mediation in September 2021, and discovery is stayed in both actions pending completion of the mediation. Based in Santa Clara, Calif., 8X8 Inc. offers software, services, and equipment that enable voice and video communication over Internet Protocol networks. Through its Packet8 software suite and related services, it allows subscribers to make phone calls and perform other broadband networking functions using VoIP technology. ACER THERAPEUTICS: Agreement in Principle Reached in Skiadas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Acer Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the parties in Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al., have reached an agreement in principle to settle the action for a payment of $8.4 million. On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-06137GHW, against the Company, Chris Schelling and Harry Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws by allegedly making material false and misleading statements regarding the likelihood of approval for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the EDSIVOTM New Drug Application (NDA). With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the case is now captioned Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al. The Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 28, 2020 and the Company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on May 1, 2020. On June 16, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company filed its answer to the Second Amended Complaint on August 7, 2020, and the Court held an initial conference on August 17, 2020. After obtaining leave from the Court to do so, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint on February 4, 2021. Subsequent to March 31, 2021, the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this action for a payment of $8.4 million, which is subject to written documentation and Court approval. Payment of the settlement will be made by the Company's insurance carriers. Acer said, "As of March 31, 2021, the Company has recognized $8.4 million for the proposed settlement as a loss in other current liabilities and also recognized a receivable from its insurance carrier of an equal amount in prepaid expenses and other current assets." Acer Therapeutics Inc. a pharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet medical needs. The company is based in Newton, Massachusetts. ADAM GINSBERG: Bittlingmeyer Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CARLY BITTLINGMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAM GINSBERG INTERNATIONAL INC., and ADAM GINSBERG, Defendants, Case No. CACE-21-010616 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., May 27, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that he received automated text messages from the Defendant to his cellular telephone number ending in 9080 on or about September 27, 2020, September 28, 2020, and May 19, 2021 encouraging him to purchase its property, goods or services. The Defendants allegedly utilized an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in transmitting the text messages as it is demonstrated by the impersonal and generic nature of the Defendants' text messages. At no point in time did the Plaintiff provided the Defendants with his prior express consent to be contacted by text messages using an ATDS, he added. As a result of the Defendants' unsolicited text messages, the Plaintiff suffered actual harm, including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, as well as inconvenience and disruption of his daily life, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking actual and statutory damages, treble damages, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity, and prohibiting the Defendants from using an ATDS without the recipient's consent to receive calls made with such equipment, and other relief as the Court deems necessary. Adams Ginsberg International Inc. provides consulting and professional services. Adam Ginsberg is the Chief Executive Officer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com AENZA SAA: Final Approval of Settlement in 2017 Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Aenza S.A.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the final approval of the settlement of the class action suit filed in 2017, is still pending. A class action civil lawsuit was filed in 2017 against the company and certain of its former directors and former and current executive officers in the United States. In February 2020, the company executed a term sheet with the plaintiffs that provides the general terms and conditions for a final settlement agreement. On July 2, 2020, the company executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement formalizing the terms of the settlement. The settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 18, 2020, but remains subject to final approval of the court. The settlement terms stipulate that the civil lawsuit will be fully and finally dismissed in exchange for a total settlement amount of US$20 million, of which the company is responsible for US$15 million, and the company recorded provisions of US$15 million as of December 31, 2020. The remaining US$5 million was paid by the company's D&O insurers. The company made an initial payment of US$350,000 into the settlement fund escrow account in September 2020. The settlement terms stipulate that the remaining $14,650,000, plus interest of 5% per annum running from September 17, 2020, must be paid by the company by June 30, 2021. The company had initiated discussions with the plaintiffs regarding a deferral of this payment, but the company cannot assure you that an agreement will be reached. No members of the plaintiff class filed objections to the settlement prior to the November 24, 2020 deadline for such objections to be filed. On December 21, 2020, a magistrate judge held a hearing on the motion for final approval of the settlement, which final approval motion remains pending. Aenza said, "If the court does not order final approval of the settlement, or the company fails to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, we would expect the lawsuit to resume." Aenza S.A.A. the largest engineering and construction company in Peru as measured by revenues during 2020, and one of the largest publicly-traded engineering and construction companies in Latin America as measured by market capitalization as of December 31, 2020, with strong complementary businesses in infrastructure and real estate. The company is bases in Lima, Peru. AGEAGLE AERIAL: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Lopez Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion for appointment of lead plaintiff in the class action suit suit initiated by Shawn Lopez, is pending. On February 26, 2021, Shawn Lopez filed a shareholder class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period from September 2, 2019 to February 18, 2021 against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., J. Michael Drozd, Nicole Fernandez-McGovern, Bret Chilcott, and Barrett Mooney. The case is captioned Lopez v. AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01810 (C.D. Cal.) and was assigned to District Judge Christina A. Snyder and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants purportedly violated the securities laws by making or approving statements that contained allegedly false representations concerning the Company's business relationship with an e-commerce company. As of this date and to the best of the company's knowledge, neither AgEagle nor the individual Defendants have been served or have agreed to accept service of the summons and complaint. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service with the Court concerning service upon any Defendant. On April 27, 2021, a number of non-party movants filed motions seeking the Court's appointment to serve as lead plaintiff(s) in the action, for the further appointment of certain lead counsel, as well as the consolidation of this action with the Madrid action discussed below. The pending motions have been made returnable with the Court on or before June 7, 2021, following the Court's resolution of which it is common for the newly-appointed lead plaintiff(s) to amend the complaint and allegations underlying the claims. AgEagle said, "For this reason, we cannot provide a meaningful evaluation at this time of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome." AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. produces, supports and operates technologically advanced drone systems and solutions for the fast-emerging unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) industry. The company is based in Wichita, Kansas. AGEAGLE AERIAL: Continues to Defend Madrid Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Cristian Jesus Merino Madrid. On March 4, 2021, Cristian Jesus Merino Madrid filed a shareholder class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period from September 2, 2019 to February 18, 2021 against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., J. Michael Drozd, Nicole Fernandez-McGovern, Bret Chilcott, and Barrett Mooney (captioned Madrid v. AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01991 (C.D. Cal.)). Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, similar to the Lopez case described above, that Defendants, among other things, purportedly violated the securities laws by making or approving statements that contained allegedly false representations concerning the Company's business relationship with an e-commerce company. On March 9, 2021, this case was transferred to District Judge Christina A. Snyder and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick as a related case to Lopez v. AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01810. AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. produces, supports and operates technologically advanced drone systems and solutions for the fast-emerging unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) industry. The company is based in Wichita, Kansas. AIRESPA WORLDWIDE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airespa Worldwide Wholesale, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Airespa Worldwide Wholesale, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03029 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Airespa Worldwide Wholesale, LLC -- https://www.rehabmart.com/ -- products from the airespa-worldwide-wholesale-llc brand sold online by Rehabmart.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Narrows Claims in N-N Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as N-N, et al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05295-EK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action. 2. denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Third and Sixth Causes of Action, except that plaintiff O-D-B's claims under the Third and Sixth Causes of Action which are dismissed. 3. dismissing as moot the claims of N-N and G-V-R; 4. directing the Clerk of Court to substitute the following defendants in the case caption: Alejandro Mayorkas for Kevin McAleenan; Tracy Renaud for Kenneth Cuccinelli; Connie Nolan for Donald Neufeld; and Merrick Garland for William Barr. The Court said, "the plaintiffs whose petitions had been pending for over 90 days as of January 17, 2017 have stated a claim that agency action has been unlawfully withheld. The motion to dismiss Counts III and VI of the Complaint must be as to all plaintiffs in that sub-class except O-D-B, whose claims on these counts are dismissed because her application had been pending for fewer than 90 days when the revised rule went into effect." A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzg8fx at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Briefing on Class Certification Stayed in Perry ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perry v. Allstate Indemnity Company, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01522 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko entered an order staying briefing on class certification until it issues its ruling on the pending Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. After the Court issues its ruling it will set a new briefing schedule on class certification says Judge Boyko. The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance. Allstate provides insurance products and services.[CC] ALTA DEVICES: Class of Employees Certified in Gunderson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT GUNDERSON, DANIEL PATTERSON, BEN LENAIL, BRENDAN KAYES, JAMES BUSTAMANTE, OCTAVI SEMONIN and ANNETT SUESS, behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. ALTA DEVICES, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-08017-BLF (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of the Class is granted: "All former employees of Alta Devices, Inc. who worked at or reported to the facility located at 545 Oakmead Pkwy, Sunnyvale, CA 94085 (the Facility) until they were laid off, furloughed and/or terminated, without cause on their part, on or about October 21, 2019, within thirty days of that date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of, the mass layoff and/or plant closing occurring on or about October 21, 2019, or thereafter, and who do not file a timely request to opt-out of the class." 2. The Plaintiffs' Motion to appoint Plaintiffs Scott Gunderson, Daniel Patterson, Ben Lenail, Brendan Kayes, James Bustamante, Octavi Semonin, and Annett Suess as the class representatives is granted. 3. Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm, P.C. and the Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP are appointed as co-class counsel. 4. The Plaintiffs' Motion for the Court's approval of the form and manner of notice to the Class is granted. 5. No later than five business days following entry of this Order, the Defendant shall provide Class Counsel with an electronic spreadsheet containing the names and last known addresses of the former employees encompassed by the Class (the Class Spreadsheet). 6. Class Counsel shall mail the Notice, First Class postage prepaid, within 10 business days of receiving the Class Spreadsheet, to the proposed members of the Class at their last known addresses as shown on the Class Spreadsheet. Alta Devices was a US-based specialty gallium arsenide PV manufacturer, which claims to have achieved a solar cell conversion efficiency record of 29.1%, as certified by Germany's Fraunhofer ISE CalLab. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wNaMgH at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON LOGISTICS: Bell Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon Logistics Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon Logistics Inc., Haskins Prime Logistics LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00456-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Amazon Logistics -- https://logistics.amazon.com/ -- is expanding its network of delivery providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Burks, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@whlawoffices.com - and - Gregory Steven Ivester 14210 Ridgewood Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 658-5718 Email: givester@robinettefirm.com AMAZON.COM: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN VANCE, et al., v. AMAZON.COM INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01084-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to complete discovery on class August 30, 2021 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion September 30, 2021 for class certification: Deadline for Amazon.com Inc. November 15, 2021 (Amazon) to respond if Plaintiffs do not submit expert testimony in support of their class certification motion: Deadline for Amazon to respond if December 3, 2021 Plaintiffs do submit expert testimony in support of their class certification motion: Deadline for Plaintiffs to reply if 34 days after Amazon does not submit expert testimony Amazon's response in support of its response: Deadline for Plaintiffs to reply if 51 days after Amazon does submit expert testimony Amazon's response in support of its response: Judge Robart says that the court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall inform the court immediately should Plaintiffs at any time decide not to seek class certification. The dates set in this scheduling order are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the court, not by agreement of the parties. The court will alter these dates only upon good cause shown. The failure to complete discovery within the time allowed will not ordinarily constitute good cause. As required by LCR 37(a), all discovery matters are to be resolved by agreement if possible. In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court "direct[s] that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court" by notifying Ashleigh Drecktrah at (206) 370-8520. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v)." A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yNT6TZ at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN GOLF: Marciano Sues Over Illegal Retention of Gratuities ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH A. MARCIANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION, JAMES MICHAEL HINCKLEY, LAWRENCE A. GOODFIELD JR., and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 512664/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 26, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiff, together with other similarly situated employees, worked for the Defendants as service employees who perform individual duties in the positions of wait staff, waiters, servers, captains, bussers, bartenders, food runners, maître d's, bridal attendants, and in various other related customarily-tipped trades. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully withheld and retained portions of gratuities provided to service employees, including but not limited to those collected as Mandatory. In addition, the Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded recordkeeping requirements of applicable New York State law by failing to maintain proper and complete records of service charges in the nature of gratuities, as required under 12 NYCRR Section 146-2. On behalf of himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff seeks litigation costs, attorneys' fees, interest, and other relief as the Court may deem appropriate, just, or equitable. American Golf Corporation operates a restaurant and catering venues. The Individual Defendants maintain control over the premises and the Plaintiff's work environment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK: Caldwell's Amended Class Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EMMETT CALDWELL, DANIEL RICE, MICHAEL LEONARD, JAMES BRUNO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK and THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-1090 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: (i) granted the joint motion of the Archdiocese of New York and the Diocese of Brooklyn to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint of the Plaintiffs; and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' request for the scheduling of a status conference in the instant action. The Plaintiffs are former participants in the Defendants' Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Programs ("IRCPs" or "Programs") who released their claims of childhood sexual abuse against one of the Defendants through the Programs in the period between October 2016 and February 2019. The Plaintiffs bring the action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against the Defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation (Count I) and negligent misrepresentation (Count II). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresented material facts in procuring releases from them of their claims, by representing that: (1) the process would result in fair and reasonable offers of settlement for claims of clergy child sexual abuse; (2) the IRCP administrators ("IRCP Administrators," "Program Administrators," or "Administrators") were "independent," when in fact they were hired and compensated by Defendants and subject to material limitations and directions dictated by Defendants; (3) the settlement offers made by the independent IRCP Administrators were fair and reasonable, when in fact they were materially affected by a monetary range and cap determined and imposed by Defendants; and (4) the IRCP Administrators would take into account the perpetrators' records of child sexual abuse reports or allegations in making settlement offers. The Plaintiffs further allege negligent misrepresentation, in that the Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to them, and breached such duty by: (1) failing to advise the Plaintiffs of how the proposed New York Child Victims Act ("Act") might affect their claims; (2) failing to advise Plaintiffs of the improving prospects for enactment of the Act at the time of initiation of their IRCPs; (3) failing to inform the Plaintiffs that they were lobbying to prevent legislation that would allow them to bring their claims in court, and instead leading them and the class to believe that there could be no recourse to the offers made in the IRCPs; (4) representing to victims-survivors that the IRCP process would result in fair and reasonable offers of settlement for claims of clergy child sexual abuse; (5) representing that the IRCP Administrators were independent although they were hired and compensated by the Defendants and subject to material limitations and directions dictated by the Defendants; (6) failing to advise the Plaintiffs that the IRCP settlement offers were materially affected by a monetary range and cap determined and imposed by the Defendants; and (7) misrepresenting that the IRCP Administrators would fairly take into account the perpetrator's history of child sexual abuse reports or allegations in making settlement offers. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration rescinding or voiding the releases signed by them and the other putative class members pursuant to CPLR 3001. They also seek damages for their underlying claims. On March 30, 2020, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint. On April 1, 2020, Judge Broderick directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by April 20, 2020 or any opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss by April 30, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on April 20, 2020. On May 18, 2020, the Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On June 15, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 29, 2020, the Defendants filed their reply. On May 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a letter motion requesting the scheduling of a status conference in the matter for the stated purpose of moving the case forward. Discussion The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the bases that the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint are insufficient to sustain the claims asserted, and that the Plaintiffs fail to plead fraud with particularity as required under Rule 9(b). A. Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim The Defendants argue that (1) the Plaintiffs do not plead their claims for fraud with sufficient particularity since they do not identify the specific allegedly fraudulent statements that were made to them or who made them and Plaintiffs' allegations regarding a lack of independence are based purely on conjecture; (2) the Plaintiffs do not plead Defendants' omissions regarding the possible enactment of the Child Victims Act with sufficient specificity; (3) the Plaintiffs do not adequately plead that they justifiably relied on Defendants' statements; and (4) the Defendants' statements concerning the "independence" of the IRCP or its Administrators, as well as the "fairness" or "reasonableness" of the amounts offered, were statements of opinion, which cannot form the basis for a fraudulent inducement claim. Judge Broderick opines that although well-pled facts that the Defendants directed and limited the settlement amounts obtainable by IRCP participants might belie the Defendants' assertions of the Programs' independence, the Plaintiffs' bare assertions that the Defendants indeed interfered in the administration of these Programs, without any accompanying factual allegations to support those assertions, do not rise to a plausible claim that Defendants' representations of independence were indeed fraudulent. As such, even if the Plaintiffs had pled with specificity that the Defendants made representations that the Programs and their Administrators were independent, Plaintiffs' failure to plead facts that would explain "why the statements were fraudulent" is fatal to their fraud claims. Count I is accordingly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. B. Negligent Misrepresentation Claim With respect to the Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim, the Defendants argue that the "Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts that could support the 'special relationship' required to assert a negligent misrepresentation claim, particularly given that the settlements were arms-length transactions in which the Defendants owed no fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs." They further argue that the Plaintiffs "cannot show that their alleged 'reliance' upon the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations regarding the CVA's likelihood of passage was reasonable in light of the legislation's extensive media coverage. Judge Broderick finds that the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants had information about growing popular support and "the improving prospects of passage of child victims' legislation" that "was not publicly known." However, they do not specify or describe what exactly the information entailed or how it would place the Defendants in any superior position to the Plaintiffs in determining the timing or prospect of the bill's enactment. Nor do the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "induced them to forebear from performing their own due diligence." As the allegedly withheld information about the Child Victims Act was readily ascertainable by Plaintiffs' ordinary diligence, the Plaintiffs have not shown justifiable reliance for purposes of their negligent misrepresentation claim. In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to sustain two elements of their pleading burden with respect to the Defendants' alleged negligent withholding of information about the Child Victims Act, and failed to plead the remainder of their negligent misrepresentation allegations with the specificity required by Rule 9(b). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Count II is dismissed. C. Leave to Amend The Plaintiffs nonetheless request the opportunity to amend to correct any pleading deficiencies "in the event that the Court were to deem any element of their claims insufficiently alleged." As "complaints dismissed under Rule 9(b) are 'almost always' dismissed with leave to amend," Juduge Broderick granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend , in light of the above discussion of the Amended Complaint's deficiencies. The Plaintiffs should provide, in any second amended complaint, additional facts that would cure the pleading deficiencies discussed in the Opinion & Order. Conclusion Because the Plaintiffs have not pled their fraudulent misrepresentation claim with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), have not met two elements of their pleading burden with respect to the Defendants' alleged negligent withholding of information about the Child Victims Act, and have failed to plead the remainder of their negligent misrepresentation allegations with the specificity required by Rule 9(b), Judge Broderick granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The Plaintiffs are directed to file any amendments within 30 days of the filing of the Opinion & Order. The Defendants' original motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint is rendered moot in light of the Plaintiffs' filing of their Amended Complaint. The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' letter request for the scheduling of a status conference. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motions at Documents 9, 23, and 31. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5c5d4u9s from Leagle.com. Jeffrey Herman -- jhcyman@hermanlaw.com -- Stuart Samuel Mermelstein -- smermelstein@hermanlaw.com -- Herman Law Firm PA, in Boca Raton, Florida, Counsel for Plaintiffs. Edna Doris Guerrasio -- eguerrasio@proskauer.com -- Margaret Antinori Dale -- mdale@proskauer.com -- Bettina Barasch Plevan -- bplevan@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, in New York City, Counsel for Defendant The Archdiocese of New York. John Morgan Callagy -- jcallagy@kelleydrye.com -- Michael Charles Lynch -- mlynch@kelleydrye.com -- Randall L. Morrison, Jr. -- rmorrison@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Bettina Barasch Plevan, Proskauer Rose LLP, in New York City, Counsel for Defendant The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn. ARCIMOTO INC: Barnette Suit Over Drop in Share Price Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Arcimoto, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, David Barnette v. Arcimoto, Inc., Mark Frohnmayer and Douglas Campoli. On April 19, 2021, litigation styled David Barnette v. Arcimoto, Inc., Mark Frohnmayer and Douglas Campoli, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action, in which none of the defendants has yet been served, purports to be a class action on behalf of all those who purchased the company's common stock between February 14, 2018 and March 22, 2021 and is based on the research report dated March 23, 2021 produced by Bonitas Research, LLC, a short seller of our common stock with the stated intention of driving down the market price of our common stock. Although the lawsuit is purportedly a class action, no motion to certify a class has been filed at this time. Arcimoto said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in this lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend this action." Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011. Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene, Oregon. BANK OF AMERICA: Cardholders Class Gets Provisional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER YICK, et al., v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00376-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order regarding preliminary injunction. The Court said, "The plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claims that Bank of America (BofA) has violated, and continues to violate, the Electronic Fund Transfers Act by failing to conduct an adequate, good faith investigation when cardholders report unauthorized charges, and often simply freezing cardholder accounts based on a faulty screening process. This has resulted (and will likely continue to result) in the improper denial of cardholders' reimbursement claims for unauthorized charges, the unlawful deprivation of provisional credits for such charges, and the inability to access benefits to which cardholders are entitled. For similar reasons, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claims that BofA is systematically breaching its contracts with cardholders and violating California's Unfair Competition Law." The Provisional certification of a class of all cardholders who call to report unauthorized charges to their accounts is warranted for purposes of a preliminary injunction. BofA is wrong to argue that the named plaintiffs or the class are categorically barred from obtaining interim relief. There is Article III standing because many of the named plaintiffs were being injured by the conduct described in Section 1 at the time they filed their lawsuits, and some of the named plaintiffs continue to suffer injury today. Buckeye Tree Lodge v. Expedia, Inc., 2020 WL 5372246, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020); see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 184 (2000). And the evidence presented by BofA in response to this preliminary injunction motion does not refute the plaintiffs' strong showing that class members are likely to suffer similar violations in the future. The harm being suffered by the class members is irreparable. The class is comprised of: "people who depend on unemployment benefits to get through the pandemic. As the plaintiffs' evidence shows, continued denial of these benefits will seriously hinder the ability of many class members to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads." Thus, although the general rule is that financial harm is not "irreparable" (because plaintiffs can generally recoup the money if they ultimately prevail), this is precisely the type of case where the exception to the general rule applies. Just as companies can establish irreparable harm by showing that losing money will likely cause them to shut down, human beings can establish irreparable harm by showing that losing wages or benefits will likely cause them to be evicted, go hungry, or be denied necessary medical care, the Court adds. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bZySNC at no extra charge.[CC] BAY MOUNTAIN: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bay Mountain Air, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 21CV382011 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., May 17, 2021), is brought to challenge systemic illegal employment practices by the Defendants resulting in violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that Defendants have engaged in, among other things, a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and Wage Order 16 by creating and maintaining policies, practices, and customs that knowingly deny employees: wages for all hours worked (regular and overtime); compensation for improper/inadequate meal periods; compensation for denied/proper rest breaks; accurate/itemized wage statements; waiting time penalties; and reimbursement for business-related expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from November 10, 2019 to September 18, 2020 as an installer of air conditioners. The Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and establishment within California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ario Garcia Uriarte, Esq. Ernesto Sanchez, Esq. LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C. 2760 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Phone: (415) 695-1000 Facsimile: (415) 695-1006 BERMAN & RABIN: Faces Barwick Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- GERRI BARWICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERMAN & RABIN, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00659-NJ (E.D. Wis., May 26, 2021) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking redress for its alleged unlawful collection practices that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter on or about June 15, 2020 in an attempt to collect an alleged debt that the Plaintiff has incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, specifically for a short-term installment loan. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant provided private information regarding her and her alleged debt, and other private details to RevSpring, a third-party mail vendor who prepared, printed, and mailed the letter, thereby violating the FDCPA and WCA. The Plaintiff also asserts that she never provided her consent to the Defendant to disclose her financial or personal information to a mail vendor. On behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and costs, and other relief as the Court deems proper. Berman & Rabin, P.A. operates a collection agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com BIGGS & GREENSLADE: Can Compel Arbitration in Dean FDCPA-TDCA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DEBORAH B. DEAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIGGS & GREENSLADE, P.C. and ATLAS CREDIT CO., INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-21-0242 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Sim Lake of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff Dean asserts individual and collective claims against Biggs & Greenslade ("B&G") and Atlas for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA") and the Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code Section 392, et seq. ("TDCA"). The Plaintiff is the borrower under a Consumer Credit Disclosure - Promissory Note dated Feb. 6, 2020, and made in favor of Atlas. Atlas engaged B&G to collect on the alleged debt. B&G sent the Plaintiff a collection letter dated Aug. 26, 2020. The letter stated that "B&G has been retained by Atlas Credit Co., Inc., to collect the outstanding obligation owed by Plaintiff in the amount of $1066.50." The Collection Letter further stated: "If arrangements for the prompt payment of this debt are not made within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, we will recommend to our client that suit be filed against you."6 The letter instructed Plaintiff to "send a certified check or money order to your local Atlas Credit branch in the amount of $1066.50 made payable to Atlas Credit Co., Inc.," and warned Plaintiff that if she failed to pay the full amount or otherwise contact B&G within thirty days of receipt of the letter, B&G was "authorized to pursue all legal actions necessary to collect this debt." On Sept. 9, 2020, the Plaintiff sent to B&G (with a copy to Atlas) a written dispute and request for verification letter via Certified Mail. On Jan. 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action "on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated," alleging that the Defendants violated the FDCPA and TDCA. She alleges that the Collection Letter employed false, deceptive, or misleading representations, including the representation that the Defendants would give her 30 days to satisfy the debt before commencing legal action, because Atlas filed suit pro se against the Plaintiff on Sept. 1, 2020 -- a mere six days after the date of the Collection Letter. The Plaintiff further alleges that the letter illegally demanded that she arrange to pay the debt within 30 days from the date of the letter, when the FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) affords her 30 days after receipt of the Collection Letter to dispute the validity of the debt." The Plaintiff also alleges that by threatening to recommend that Atlas take legal action to collect the debt, B&G's letter overshadowed or was inconsistent with her dispute rights under the FDCPA. She seeks to hold Atlas vicariously liable under the TDCA for the unlawful collection activities carried out by B&G on its behalf. On March 12, 2021, the Defendants filed their Motion to Compel contending that the Plaintiff must arbitrate her individual claims against Defendants. The Plaintiff responded on April 9, 2021, arguing that (1) the Defendants have failed to establish the existence of a binding arbitration agreement between Atlas and the Plaintiff; (2) as the Plaintiff's case is a putative class action, the Defendants are unable to compel arbitration; (3) Atlas waived any right to compel arbitration by suing the Plaintiff in state court;19 and (4) even if the Court would compel her to arbitrate her claims against Atlas, B&G should not be able to likewise compel arbitration because B&G was not a party to the arbitration contract. On April 16, 2021, the Defendants filed their reply. Analysis A. The Existence of an Arbitration Agreement The Plaintiff argues that Atlas has not satisfied its burden of showing that a binding arbitration agreement exists between it and the Plaintiff. Atlas argues that it has carried its burden by proving the existence of the Note. Judge Lake opines that the Plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of the declaration or the authenticity of the Note. She offers no evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact about whether an arbitration agreement exists. The Plaintiff "cannot avoid compelled arbitration by generally denying the facts upon which the right to arbitration rests," but "must identify specific evidence in the record demonstrating a material factual dispute for trial." Because the Plaintiff has not done so, the Judge concludes that a valid arbitration agreement exists. B. Scope of the Arbitration Agreement Whether the Plaintiff's claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement is a question for the arbitrator, not the Court, to decide, Judge Lake holds. Express adoption of the AAA Rules presents clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. The Plaintiff and Atlas expressly incorporated the AAA Commercial Rules into their arbitration agreement. These rules state at R-7(a) that "the arbitrator will have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim." The Judge concludes that there is a valid arbitration agreement and that an arbitrator may determine whether the Plaintiff's FDCPA and TDCA claims are within the agreement's scope. C. Arbitrability of a Putative Class Action The Plaintiff argues that Atlas is unable to compel arbitration because her case is a putative class action. The Defendants argue that the Note's silence on class arbitration means that the Court must compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims. Because the Note is silent as to whether class claims should be arbitrated, Judge Lake finds that classwide arbitration in the case is not appropriate. But the Defendants are not seeking to compel arbitration on a classwide basis -- they are seeking to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate her individual claims. The Plaintiff indicated by clear and unmistakable language that any claims arising from her agreement with Atlas would be decided by arbitration. Because none of the policy concerns that underlay the Court's decision in Varela are present, compelling the Plaintiff to arbitrate her individual claims will not deny her the benefits of arbitration. D. Waiver The Plaintiff argues that Atlas waived its right to compel arbitration by suing the Plaintiff in state court. The Defendants reply that this argument lacks merit. Judge Lake opines that the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence as to the "time and expense" she incurred defending herself from Atlas's state-court claims. Nor does the record show that the Defendants failed to "timely assert their right to arbitrate. Moreover, the Note makes clear that even if Atlas does not "enforce its rights every time, it can still enforce them later." While such a provision does not prevent the court from finding waiver, it does suggest that Atlas' decision to deal with a claim in small claims court should not prevent it from later enforcing its right to arbitrate a completely separate claim. The Judge finds that the Defendants did not waive the right to arbitrate the Plaintiff's claims. E. Arbitration By a Nonparty The Plaintiff argues that even if the Court would compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims against Atlas, B&G should not likewise be able to compel arbitration because B&G was not a party to the arbitration contract. The Defendants argue that B&G may assert its right to compel arbitration because intertwined claims estoppel applies. Judge Lake finds that all the facts alleged against B&G are inextricably enmeshed and have a significant relationship to the terms of the Note, and thus B&G may compel arbitration despite being a nonsignatory. F. Dismissing the Case For the reasons he explained, Judge Lake concludes that the Defendants may enforce the arbitration agreement and compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendants have asked the Court to stay this case pending a final arbitration. When all issues raised in an action are bound by an agreement to arbitrate, the Court has discretion to dismiss the action. Because the Plaintiff's claims must be submitted to arbitration, retaining jurisdiction and staying the action will serve no purpose. Accordingly, Judge Lake dismisses the action without prejudice. Conclusion and Order For the reasons he stated, Judge Lake granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed without prejudice the action. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pk7r8ve from Leagle.com. BLUE DIAMOND: Biegel Suit Wins Initial Class Cert. for Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lauren Biegel, Greg Maroney, Ryan Cosgrove, Clive Rhoden, Stephen Bradshaw, Angela Farve and Christina Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 7:20-cv-03032-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order as follows: 1. Stay of the Action All non-settlement-related proceedings in the Action are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. 2. Preliminary Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. Having made the findings set forth above, the Court preliminarily certifies a plaintiff class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily finds, based on the terms of the Settlement described in the Settlement Agreement. 3. Class Definition The Settlement Class is defined as All consumers in the United States who purchased the Products during the Class Period. The Settlement Class excludes the Released Parties, any government entities, persons who made such purchase for the purpose of resale, persons who made a valid, timely request for exclusion, and Hon. Cathy Seibel and Randall W. Wulff, and any members of their immediate family. 4. Class Representatives and Class Counsel The Court appoints Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP, Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C., and Kevin Laukaitis of Shub Law Firm LLC as class counsel for the Settlement Class. Lauren Biegel, Greg Maroney, Stephen Bradshaw, Angela Farve, Ryan Cosgrove, Clive Rhoden, and Christina Henderson are hereby appointed as the Class Representatives. 5. Preliminary Settlement Approval The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement as being within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate, within the meaning of Rule 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, subject to final consideration at the Final Approval Fairness Hearing. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vxcymc at no extra charge.[CC] BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Porter Sues Over Misleading Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Garry Porter, Jr., individually and behalf of all those similarly situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-11316-BRM-ESK (D.N.J., May 17, 2021), is brought to stop the Defendant's false and misleading advertising relating to the sale and lease of the Vehicles and to obtain redress for those who have purchased or leased the Vehicles across the United States in violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff brings on behalf of a proposed nationwide class for the benefit and protection of purchasers and lessees of Defendant's model year 2021 BMW 430i and 430i xDrive vehicles. The Defendant deceptively markets and advertises the Vehicles as having LED Headlights with Cornering Lights when, in fact, they do not. This causes a significant safety issue, as customers are led to believe that their Vehicles have safety features that will assist them with driving around dark corners, and may rely on those non-existent features, to their detriment. The Defendant has deceptively marketed, advertised, and sold the Vehicles as having Cornering Lights, when, in fact, the Vehicles do not have such lighting systems. Instead, BMW informed the Plaintiff that his Vehicle only had LED Headlights, and not Cornering Lights. In other words, his Vehicle, contrary to BMW's representations at the time of purchase, will not provide the promised brightness around dark curves. The Plaintiff and other members of the Class would have paid less for the Vehicle or not purchased or leased the Vehicle had they known that BMW's representations were false, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a model year 2021 BMW 430i from BMW of Delray Beach in Delray Beach, Florida, an authorized agent of the Defendant. The Defendant is one of the world's largest and best-known manufacturers of luxury vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 2 Hudson Place, Suite 100 Hoboken, NJ 07030 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com nfinkelman@millershah.com BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Carlson Class Action Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a verified class action suit initiated by Douglas Carlson. On March 25, 2021, BIT Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Brooklyn Inc. (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.) merged with and into Brooklyn LLC, with Brooklyn LLC surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Brooklyn Inc.. This transaction was completed in accordance with the terms of an agreement and plan of merger and reorganization dated August 12, 2020, or the Merger Agreement, among Brooklyn Inc., BIT Merger Sub, Inc. and Brooklyn LLC. On or about March 12, 2021, Douglas Carlson, a purported stockholder of NTN Buzztime, Inc., filed a verified class action complaint against NTN and its then current members of the board of directors, for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties and violating Section 211(c) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In particular, plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to hold an annual stockholder meeting. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment at the same time that he filed his complaint. In order to moot the claim addressed in the complaint, the Company has agreed to hold its annual meeting on June 29, 2021. On or about May 6, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation, which was "so ordered" by the Court, extending defendants time to respond to the complaint and file their answering brief in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before July 16, 2021 and Plaintiff's reply brief in support of his motion for summary judgment is due on or before August 20, 2021. Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. operates as a bio-tech company. The Company focuses on exploring the role that the human immune system can have in treating patients with cancer and immunologic diseases, both as a single agent and in combination with other therapies. The company is based in Brooklyn, New York. BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Class Suit Fully Repaid ------------------------------------------------- Bumble Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that settlement in the class action suit filed against Bumble Trading Inc. was fully repaid during the three months ended March 31, 2021. On November 13, 2018 a class action lawsuit was filed against Bumble Trading Inc. in the Northern District of California. There are two elements to the lawsuit: New York Dating Services Law and California Auto-Renewal Law. The parties held a mediation on April 2, 2020 ultimately resulting in the plaintiffs and Bumble accepting the mediator's settlement proposal. The settlement received preliminary approval by the court on July 15, 2020 and final approval was granted on December 18, 2020. The settlement became fully effective as of January 18, 2021 and was fully repaid during the three months ended March 31, 2021. Bumble Inc. develops application software. The Company offers an online dating application that enables users to meet new people for dating, friendship, and relationship. Bumble serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Austin, Texas. BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Gender Bias Suit Awaits Preliminary OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bumble Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the settlement in the class action suit related to alleged men discrimination, awaits preliminary approval of the court. On May 29, 2018, a plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Bumble Trading Inc. alleging that Bumble's "women message first" feature discriminates against men and is therefore unlawful under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and Cal. Bus & Prof. Code Section 17200. The parties held a mediation on June 23, 2020 and signed a settlement agreement on November 20, 2020, subject to preliminary approval by the court. The Company recorded an accrual for the loss contingency in relation to this litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bumble Inc. develops application software. The Company offers an online dating application that enables users to meet new people for dating, friendship, and relationship. Bumble serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Austin, Texas. CALIFORNIA FISH GRILL: Sarmiento Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Fish Grill Investments, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lisa Sarmiento, The General Public, and all others similarly situated v. California Fish Grill Investments, LLC, Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2021-00300994-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 17, 2021). The case type is stated as "Business Tort for Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". California Fish Grill -- https://www.cafishgrill.com/ -- is a fast-casual seafood kitchen dedicated to liberating the love of seafood while respecting our oceans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip R. Poliner, Esq. WESTRUP KLICK LLP Phone: 866-782-4863 Web: http://www.westrupklick.com CANOO INC: Faces Stockholders Putative Class Suits in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Canoo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company is facing putative class action suits in California. On April 2, 2021 and April 9, 2021, the Company was named as a defendant in putative class action complaints filed in California on behalf of individuals who purchased or acquired shares of the Company’s stock during a specified period. Through the complaint, plaintiffs are seeking, among things, compensatory damages. Canoo said, "However, the final determinations of liability will only be made following comprehensive investigations and litigation processes." Canoo Inc. (formerly known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV) is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in 19951 Mariner Avenue, Torrance, California. The Company was formed for the purpose of effecting a business combination with specific focus on businesses in the industrial, technology and infrastructure sectors. CAPITAL ONE: Sends Unwanted Robocalls, Smith Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ISAAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of others, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01021-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 27, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant began a relentless campaign of robo calls to the Plaintiff's cell phone in December 2020 in an attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt owed to Respondent. The Plaintiff had revoked any prior express consent the Defendant may have believed it had to robo-dial him. The Plaintiff claims that he had suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy due to the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded calls. Moreover, the invasion caused concrete harm to the Plaintiff in the form of harassment and intrusion similar to trespassing, the suit says. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. provides financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swighart, Esq. Juliana G. Blaha, Esq. SWIGHART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwighartLawGroup.com Juliana@SwighartLawGroup.com - and – Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com CENTERSTATE BANK: Joint Bid to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRECISION ROOFING OF N. FLORIDA INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CENTERSTATE BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James R. Klindt entered an order that: -- The joint motion to modify class certification-related deadlines, filed may 17, 2021, is granted. -- The Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 20, 2021 to serve its expert reports for class certification. -- The Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 20, 2021 to file a motion for class certification. -- The Defendant shall have up to and including August 23, 2021 to serve its expert reports for class certification. -- The date the parties requested falls on a day the Court is closed. -- All other terms and deadlines set forth in the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, entered February 11, 2021, shall remain intact. CenterState Bank offers personal, small business & corporate banking services in Florida, Alabama and Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fwK46l at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Boumaiz Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY-CATHERINE BOUMAIZ, et al., v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-06997-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Josephine L. Staton entered an order denying Boumaiz's motion for class certification of: "All Charter Store Associates (CSAs) (and/or nonexempt Charter Sales Representatives) who worked for Charter during the Class Period within the state of California." Charter is a broadband communications services company providing video, internet, and voice services to approximately 27.2 million residential and business customers in the United States. Boumaiz worked for Charter as a Charter Store Associate (CSA). Charter's Opposition represents, and Boumaiz does not dispute, that she was terminated from her position in August 2017. Boumaiz, and other CSAs, were or are classified as nonexempt and paid a base hourly rate that is supplemented by commission payments. On May 22, 2019, Boumaiz filed this putative class action in Orange County Superior Court, alleging failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages at the agreed rate; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; unlawful deduction of wages; failure to pay timely wages upon termination of employment; failure to pay accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Charter Spectrum. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wLLorIat no extra charge.[CC] CHESTER, PA: Class Settlement in Pitney Suit Gets Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENARD PITNEY v. CITY OF CHESTER, Case No. 19-799 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and motion to certify class are granted; 2. The Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement Agreement is finally approved and shall be consummated in accordance with its terms; 3. The Plan of Allocation to be fair and reasonable, and directs that the Plan Administrator effectuate the distribution of the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation; 4. The distribution of the Notice of Class Action Settlement was in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Preliminary Approval Order; 5. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted. Counsel is awarded $275,000. Class Representative Pitney is awarded a $25,000 incentive payment; and 6. All claims asserted by Plaintiffs and the Class against the Defendant are dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Chester is a city in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, United States within the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SIQhmE at no extra charge.[CC] CHINACACHE INT'L: August 27 Final Settlement Approval Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the final settlement approval hearing in William Likas v. ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. et al, Civil Action No. 2:2019-cv-06942, is set on August 27, 2021. The company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: William Likas v. ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. et al, Civil Action No. 2:2019-cv-06942 (C.D. Cal.) (filed on August 9, 2019). The action—purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to the the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs) from April 10, 2015 to May 17, 2019—alleges that certain of the our public statements and filings contained materially false and misleading statements or omissions in violation of U.S. securities laws. On October 2, 2019, the Central California District Court appointed a group of two purported shareholders of us as the Lead Plaintiff of the class. On December 15, 2020, the parties reached an agreement to a stipulation and agreement of settlement to settle this purported class action. On April 26, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a settlement hearing on August 27, 2021. ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd., an investment holding company, provides content and application delivery services in the People's Republic of China. The company offers a portfolio of services and solutions to businesses, government agencies, and other enterprises to enhance the reliability and scalability of their online services and applications. The Company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China. CLASSICA CRUISE: $875K Settlement in Janicijevic Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DRAGAN JANICIJEVIC, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated crew members working aboard BAHAMAS PARADISE CRUISE LINE vessels, Plaintiff v. CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR, LTD. and PARADISE CRUISE LINE OPERATOR LTD., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Notice Regarding Service Awards. The Plaintiff initiated the action on Aug. 4, 2020. On Nov. 30, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in the case. The claims of Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic, on behalf of himself and all Settlement Class Members, and Defendants Classica Cruise Operator Ltd. and Paradise Cruise Line Operator Ltd. ("Defendants"), have been settled pursuant to the Amended Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated Dec. 18, 2020. On Jan. 7, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and provisionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. On May 12, 2021, the Court held a duly noticed Final Approval Hearing to consider: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether Judgment should be entered dismissing the Settling Plaintiff's claims on the merits and with prejudice, including the claims of Settlement Class Members; and (3) whether and in what amount to award Attorneys' Fees and Expenses to Class Counsel and a Case Contribution Award to the Settling Plaintiff. The Settlement provides the Class with both monetary relief and important internal changes resulting in policies directed to avoid a reoccurrence of the wage dispute before the Court. The approved procedures that were incorporated into the class action settlement include procedures and protocols so that if a similar incident such as the Pandemic ever occurs in the future that results in an immediate stop sail order or other circumstance resulting in an immediate and unexpected cessation of the provision of goods and services by the cruise line, there is a mechanism by which shipowners, management and crew can either totally avoid a wage dispute or effectively communicate in an attempt to resolve any wage issue that may arise if the cruise line is prevented from being able to sail or service passengers in the future. The Parties have agreed on a general uniform procedure to address the wage issues with the direct involvement of crew members, which the Court has been advised will be implemented in all crew contracts when the cruise lines commences sailing again. Judge Bloom commends the Defendants for voluntarily undertaking policy changes. She finds that these policies certainly have an important value to the class that would not have been brought about by individual actions. The Settlement provides for a Common Fund of $875,000 to be established for the benefit of the Class. The Defendants represent that the Fund will be available to be paid to Class Members 35 days after the Court grants Final Approval, assuming no appeals are filed. If an appeal is filed, payment will be made thirty-five (35) days after resolution of the appeal. If no appeal is timely filed, payment will be made within 35 days from the order of final approval and entry of final judgment in thes case. The fund amount allowed all the class members to submit timely claims for both: (1) any and all loss of alleged two month severance payments, and (2) any wages and tips not paid for work performed by certain crew on the vessel during the class period (because not all crew were asked to perform tasks). Under the proposed Settlement, all approved class members will receive 100% of their lost severance payments, and will be paid for wages and tips (even though no tips were paid by passengers during the pandemic when the cruise line was prohibited from sailing by the Centers for Disease Control) for all time spent performing tasks on the vessel during the pandemic. Judge Bloom finds this result to be outstanding, especially considering: (1) each class member had a contract that contains a specific Arbitration Clause, which the Court has previously enforced, (2) the settlement was able to be reached by all counsel -- during a pandemic -- and only after numerous mediation sessions with nationally-renowned mediator Rodney Max, and (3) the Court addressed concerns initially at a hearing with the Parties, which resulted in the filing of a Third Amended Complaint that addressed the Court's concerns. Accordingly, Judge Bloom granted the Motion for Final Approval. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, she finally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, as identified in the Settlement Agreement, which will consist of the following: "All seafarer-employees who were physically present on the Grand Celebration for at least one day anytime between March 18, 2020 until August 20, 2020 and were (1) terminated such that severance is due under their employment contracts and/or (2) were employed and performed a designated job at Defendants' request. Seafarer-employees will not include deck and engine employees and independent contractors, as well as the Cruise Defendants' corporate officers or corporate directors. Seafarer-employees will not include Cruise Defendants' corporate officers or corporate directors." Judge Bloom finally designated (i) the law firms of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. and The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (ii) Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic as the Settlement Class representative. The terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including all Exhibits attached thereto, have been entered into in good faith and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), are fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, adequate as to, and in the best interests of, Settlement Class Members. The Juduge entered judgment approving and adopting the Settlement and the Settlement Agreement, fully and finally terminating all Released Claims of all Releasing Persons in the Litigation against the Released Parties, on the merits and with prejudice. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), Judge Bloom awarded the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $262,500 payable by the Defendants pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. She denied the Plaintiff's request for a service award at this time but will retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of revisiting the denial of service award if the Eleventh Circuit holds a rehearing en banc in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), and will reverse her decision, or if another Eleventh Circuit decision overrules Johnson. The Defendants will not be responsible for, and will not be liable with respect to the allocation among Class Counsel or any other person who may assert a claim thereto, the attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court. The Settling Plaintiff and the Class Counsel have represented and warranted that there are no outstanding liens or claims against the Litigation, and they will be solely responsible for satisfying any liens or claims asserted against the Litigation. The Releases do not affect the rights of Noticed Class Members who timely and properly submitted a Request for Exclusion. The Settlement Agreement will be the exclusive remedy for all Settlement Class Members with regards to the Released Claims. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur, the Judgment will automatically be rendered null and void and will be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith will be null and void, and the Parties will be restored to their positions as of Aug. 20, 2020. The Settlement Class Members will promptly dismiss with prejudice all claims, actions, or proceedings that have been brought by any Settlement Class Member in any jurisdiction that are based on Released Claims pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Judgment, and that are enjoined pursuant to the Judgment. The claims of Settling Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class, including all individual claims and class claims presented, are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice against Defendants without fees (including attorneys' fees) or costs to any party except as otherwise provided in the Judgment. The Settling Parties are directed to implement and consummate the Settlement according to its terms and provisions, as may be modified by Orders of the Court. Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, as may be modified by the Preliminary Approval Order or the Judgment. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), Judge Bloom entered the Judgment and expressly determined that there is no just reason for delay. Without impacting the finality of the Judgment, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, consummation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and the Judgment, including jurisdiction to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/acy3mz3j from Leagle.com. CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Clover Health Investment, Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.). In February 2021, the company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.); Kaul v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn.); Yaniv v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00109 (M.D. Tenn.); and Tremblay v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn.). The complaints assert violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The Kaul action asserts additional claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaints generally relate to allegations published in an article issued on February 4, 2021, by Hindenburg Research LLC. The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021 or February 4, 2021), as well as certain other costs. In April 2021, the Middle District of Tennessee class actions described above were consolidated under Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as lead case. The court appointed a lead plaintiff, approved a lead counsel and a liaison counsel, and approved the parties' proposed schedule for filing an amended complaint and the defendants' responses. Clover Health Investment, Corp. provides insurance services. The Company offers hospital, medical, and private insurance services. Clover Health Investment serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Franklin, Tennessee. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION: Jackson Sues Over Breach of Warranty ------------------------------------------------------------ William Jackson, Qilliam Ward, Bonnie Griffith, John Sagady, Ethel Morris, Rickey Johnson, Jonadab Ogbulie, Gary Hayes, Tembesza Chigovanyika, Josephine Satterfield, Lee Griffin, and Darryl Costella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PARTNERS LLC, and DOES 1-10, Case No. RG21099229 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 17, 2021), is brought against the Defendant's breach of the warranty of habitability, which included the implied warranty of habitability that the Plaintiffs' units and common areas would be kept in a habitable condition. According to the complaint, the Defendants acquired the Northgate Terrace property in 2015. All tenants at Northgate Terrace arc elderly or disabled. All Plaintiffs have written rental agreements with Defendant for residential tenancies. These leases have an implied warranty of habitability and entitled Plaintiffs to quiet enjoyment of their units. Shortly after acquiring the Subject Property the Defendants cancelled the existing pest control contract, and initiated service with a different provider for a lower level of service than had previously been done. No later than 2017, there was a cockroach infestation in the building. From 2018 onward there was a bedbug infestation in the building. The Defendant's responses to complaints of bedbugs and cockroaches were untimely and ineffective. The Defendants did not take more aggressive action despite an increasing presence of vermin. The Defendants received actual notice of the infestation at various times from 2017 onward, and knew that their extermination efforts were unsuccessful. Defendants received ongoing complaints. All the Plaintiffs have had and currently have cockroaches in their units and the common areas of the building due to the Defendant's conduct. The infestation has caused serious emotional harm to the tenants as well, causing anxiety, depression, disgust, lack of sleep, and other harms. There have been additional impacts on tenants from the infestation, including inability to get or keep needed in home care providers who are unwilling to live in an infested building and unit. The tenants have suffered fear and embarrassment over having visitors, leading to harms to their relationships, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs are all residential tenants at 550 241h Street in Oakland, California, commonly called "Northgate Terrace" COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PARTNERS LLC is a limited liability company operating in California that acquired Northgate in 2015.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erik Bauman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW SERROS 2120 University Ave. Suite 730 Berkeley, CA 94704 Phone: 510-500-5888 Email: crikb@scrros-law.com CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: HEI Suit Removed to District of Colorado -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Holtzman Enterprises, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Continental Casualty Company, CNA Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01333 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on May 27, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01441-STV to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Continental Casualty Company -- https://www.cna.com/ -- underwrites property and casualty insurance for a broad range of businesses and professionals.[BN] CREDENCE RESOURCE: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in D. Oregon --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource Management, LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Lawrence, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00819-MK (D. Ore., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credence Resource Management, LLC -- https://credencerm.com/ -- is a debt collection agency that was founded in Nevada in 2013, with its current headquarters in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth P. Dobson, Esq. 0324 SW Abernethy Street Portland, OR 97239 Phone: (503) 717-6582 Email: landlaw.oregon@gmail.com CREE INC: Wedra Seeks to Extend Class Certification Briefing Sched ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephanie Wedra v. Cree, Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-03162-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the current class certification briefing schedule in this action. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification along with two expert reports on February 26, 2021. On April 30, 20201, Defendant filed its opposition to class certification including four expert reports, authored by five different experts. On the same day, the Defendant filed two motions to strike Plaintiff's experts. Additionally, on April 23, 2021, the Defendant file a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The current class certification briefing schedule does not provide adequate time for Plaintiff to draft her reply brief in support of class certification, respond to Defendant's motions to strike Plaintiff's experts, depose Defendant's five experts, potentially draft motions to strike those experts, and prepare rebuttal expert reports. The Parties met and conferred, and the Parties agreed to an extension of the present briefing schedule. Cree, Inc. is an American manufacturer and marketer of semiconductors. A copy of the the Letter motion dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fnZ9Hb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. Telephone: 347-657-5533 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 CULTURAL CARE: Class Cert. Bid Response Extended to June 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morales Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-11862 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an electronic order allowing consent motion for extension of time to file response/reply to motion to certify class conditionally. Responses due by June 9, 2021, says Judge Talwani. The nature of suit state Labor -- Other Labor Litigation involving collection of unpaid wages. Cultural Care was founded in 2004. The Company line of business includes providing child care services for infants and children.[CC] DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Denial of Plea in Abatement in Daniels Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF MARIAN BROWN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Appellant v. DAVID DANIELS, JODIE CAMPBELL, AND KELLIE MCCULLAR, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND A CLASS OF MEDICALLY VULNERABLE PERSONS, Appellees, Case No. 05-20-00579-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Fifth District in Dallas reverses the trial court's order denying the plea in abatement filed by the Appellant Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown and renders judgment dismissing the claims of the Appellees for lack of jurisdiction. The lawsuit brought by the Appellees concerns conditions at the Dallas County Jail during the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 21, 2020, the Appellees filed their original verified petition against Dallas County Sheriff Brown in her official capacity. They sought injunctive relief under Texas constitutional, statutory, and common law on behalf of themselves and a class of approximately 1,800 "medically-vulnerable" people detained in the Jail. The Appellees' petition stated in part that unlike members of the general public, the class members are unable to socially distance and avoid close contact with detained individuals and DSOs [Detention Service Officers] who are spreading COVID-19 within the Jail, and the class members are also unable to take other steps to protect themselves from injury and death and are utterly dependent on the Sheriff for protection of their health and lives. The Sheriff's failure to provide adequate PPE [personal protective equipment], cleaning, training, and other measures to prevent unnecessary spread of COVID-19 makes the lack of social distancing even more dangerous to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. The Appellees' original petition alleged the following claims: (i) Count I: Violation of Article 1, sections 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution; (ii) Count II: Public Health Nuisance, and (iii) Count III: Negligence and Gross Negligence. The Appellees asserted that "the Sheriff's conduct violates the rights of the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class under the Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution as well as under Texas statutory and common law," and they sought "emergency injunctive relief to stop the unsafe and unconstitutional conditions causing immediate and irreparable harm and the imminent loss of human life and serious damage to human health." They alleged "the Sheriff's actions and inactions violated Article I, Sections 13 and 19, of the Texas Constitution, violate the Sheriff's mandatory obligations under Texas statutory law, and would, unless restrained, cause personal injury and death in contravention of Texas tort law." The Sheriff filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The plea, filed on May 22, 2020, challenged the allegations in the Appellees' petition, claiming they failed to plead sufficient facts to avoid immunity. The trial court heard Sheriff Brown's plea in a hearing held on May 26, 2020, but deferred ruling because technical problems prevented receipt of some submissions. In an email to the counsel sent two days later, on May 28, the trial court informed the parties it was denying the plea. On June 1, 2020, the Appellees filed their first amended verified petition, and two days later, on June 3, Sheriff Brown filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order denying her plea to the jurisdiction. Arguing no written order had been signed, the Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal. On June 16, 2020, the trial court signed an order deferring a ruling on the plea to the jurisdiction, concluding it should make the jurisdictional determination. On June 22, 2020, the Appellees filed their second amended verified petition. Meanwhile, on June 25, 2020, Sheriff Brown sought mandamus relief in the Appellate Court, arguing the trial court's June 16 order deferring its ruling on her plea deprived her of her right to an accelerated, interlocutory appeal. On July 20, 2020, the Appellate Court conditionally granted the writ, concluding the trial court abused its discretion in deferring its ruling on the plea and ordering the trial court to (1) vacate its June 16 order and (2) rule on the plea. On July 21, the trial court signed a written order vacating the June 16 order and denying Sheriff Brown's plea after "having considered the Plea and the Parties' submissions and arguments of counsel." On July 29, 2020, the Appellate Court denied the Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal. The Appellees' second amended petition seeks "all appropriate injunctive relief," including "that the Sheriff must immediately begin and continue to enforce effective social distancing" for class members at the Jail "by reducing crowding in pods, tanks, and other shared spaces such that it is practicable for Class members to remain at least 6 feet away from other persons at all times and provide adequate staffing at the Jail." Sheriff Brown brings the following three issues, arguing the trial court erred in denying the Sheriff's plea to the jurisdiction: (i) Sheriff Brown is immune from suit for her decisions and actions arising from the operations of the Dallas County Jail and her management of the COVID-19 crisis; (ii) Sheriff Brown is immune from suit based on the Plaintiffs' claims that she denied their rights under provisions of the Texas Constitution guaranteeing them due course of law and protection from cruel and unusual punishment; and (iii) Sheriff Brown is immune from suit based on the Plaintiffs' claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). Discussion I. Issue I The Appellate Court holds that the TTCA provides a limited waiver of governmental immunity if certain conditions are satisfied. Governmental immunity from suit defeats a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction; thus, it is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. Public officials sued in their official capacities, like Sheriff Brown in the instant case, are protected by the same governmental immunity as the governmental units they represent. However, a narrow exception to this rule exists for ultra vires claims; even if immunity has not been waived by the Legislature, a claim may be brought against a governmental official if the official engages in ultra vires conduct. Ultra vires claims depend on the scope of the state official's authority,' not the quality of the official's decisions." Thus, it is not an ultra vires act for an official to make an erroneous decision within the authority granted. Merely asserting legal conclusions or labeling a defendant's actions as 'ultra vires,' 'illegal,' or 'unconstitutional' does not suffice to plead an ultra vires claim -- what matters is whether the facts alleged constitute actions beyond the governmental actor's statutory authority, properly construed. The jurisdictional inquiry with respect to the Appellees' purported ultra vires claims would substantially overlap with the claims' merits. II. Issue Two: Claims Under the Texas Constitution The Appellate Court concludes that the Appellees' claims under the Texas Constitutional are facially invalid, fail as a matter of law, and therefore do not, as pleaded, support a waiver of sovereign immunity. The conduct alleged does not, as a matter of law, state a viable constitutional claim. The Appellees do not dispute that the Sheriff and the Jail have taken some steps to control the spread of COVID-19 in the Jail. Indeed, testimony incorporated into their petition shows the Jail is providing them with no-cost access to bar soap, paper towels, and unspecified disinfectants and detergents. That the Dallas County Jail's policies on screening and protecting inmates, its procedures for testing and quarantining, or other protective measures for managing the COVID-19 pandemic do not conform in every respect with the CDC's guidance or with the Appellees' preferences is not a basis for concluding their constitutional rights have been violated. III. Ultra Vires Claims Turning to the Sheriff's first issue, the Appellees support their ultra vires claims against the Sheriff by pointing to various Texas statutory and regulatory provisions and alleging the Sheriff is either acting contrary to mandatory statutory duties or failing to perform ministerial acts required by statute. The Sheriff contends she is immune from suit for her decisions and actions arising from the operation of the Jail and her management of the COVID-19 crisis. The Appellate Court concludes that Sheriff Brown's alleged actions are not ultra vires. It finds that (i) the Appellees' pleadings demonstrate that their claims against the Sheriff do not fall within the narrow ultra vires exception; (ii) the Sheriff does not act ultra vires merely by purchasing different cleaning products in different quantities than appellees would prefer, nor is it ultra vires if she assigns the cleaning responsibilities in the Jail differently; (iii) at least as far as sections 275.1 and 275.4 are concerned, appellees do not allege the staffing levels in the Jail fall below the regulatory threshold; (iv) the Appellees do not specify what preventive maintenance -- apart from general cleaning of the Jail -- should be done, or at what intervals, nor do they allege any specific components of the Jail are in disrepair; and (v) the Appellees also do not point to facts showing the Sheriff misinterpreted the enabling law that creates the authority for her to act; that she acted in conflict with the law that authorizes her to act; that she violated state law; or that she otherwise acted without lawful authority. IV. Texas Tort Claims Act In her third issue, the Sheriff argues she is also immune from suit for the Appellees' claims under the TTCA. The Appellate Court concludes the TTCA does not waive Sheriff Brown's immunity for the Appellees' tort claims. First, because the Apppellees seek only injunctive relief in the suit, the limited waiver of immunity in the TTCA does not apply, and their tort claims must be dismissed. Second, the Appellees attempt to hold Sheriff Brown liable for claims that are based on either the Sheriff's failure to perform acts that are not required by law and/or actions she has taken under discretionary authority. Consequently, section 101.056 of the TTCA bars their claims. V. Appellees' Opportunity to Amend Their Pleadings Because the Appellate Court is sustaining the Sheriff's issues on appeal, it must decide whether remand, as requested by the Appellees, or rendition of a judgment dismissing the claims, as requested by the Sheriff, is the appropriate remedy. The Appellees argue they should be given an opportunity to amend their pleadings to address any remaining immunity issues. The Appellate Court opines that the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. And, practically speaking, the Appellees have already had two opportunities to replead, to no avail. They twice amended their petition after the hearing on the Sheriff's plea to the jurisdiction. The Appellees have, therefore, already had opportunities to amend their pleadings to cure the jurisdictional defects raised in the Sheriff's plea. Given the insurmountable jurisdictional defects asserted by the Sheriff, the Appellees do not need, and they are not entitled to, another opportunity to re-plead. Conclusion The Appellate Court concludes that the Appellees' pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction. It sustains the Sheriff's issues, reverses the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, and renders judgment dismissing the Appellees' claims against the Sheriff for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellant recovers her costs of the appeal from the Appellees. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/afvn8a5e from Leagle.com. DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Faces Rosencrants Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Danimer Scientific said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 17, 2021, that the company faces a class action suit initiated by Darryl Keith Rosencrants. On May 14, 2021, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Darryl Keith Rosencrants, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Danimer Scientific, Inc., Stephen E. Croskrey, John A. Dowdy, III, John P. Amboian, Richard J. Hendrix, Christy Basco, Philip Gregory Calhoun, Gregory Hunt, Isao Noda, and Stuart W. Pratt. The alleged class consists of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer securities between December 30, 2020 and March 19, 2021 (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint is premised upon various allegations that throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding, among other things, Danimer's business, operations, and compliance policies. Plaintiff seeks the following remedies: (i) determining that the lawsuit may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ii) certifying Plaintiff as the class representative, (iii) requiring Defendants to pay damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff and the class by reason of the aforesaid acts alleged in the complaint, and (iv) awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the class pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The complaint repeats certain allegations, which are already in the public domain. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the complaint, believe this lawsuit is without any merit and intend to defend it vigorously. Danimer Scientific, formerly known as Meredian Holdings Group Inc. and MHG, is a biopolymer manufacturer headquartered in Bainbridge, Georgia. DEDICATED NURSING: Underpays Healthcare Employees, Fortin Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA FORTIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEDICATED NURSING ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02836-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 27, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid and non-exempt healthcare employee. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully deducted a daily meal break from her and other similarly situated healthcare employees' hours worked regardless of whether they received an uninterrupted meal break. As a result, they were not fully and lawfully compensated for all of their compensable hours worked, including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff added. The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid compensation, including overtime wages, as well as litigation costs, disbursements, and reasonable counsel and experts' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dedicated Nursing Associates provides healthcare staffing solutions for various healthcare providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Tel: (614) 949-1181 Fax: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com DENNY'S INC: Wintjen Suit Seeks to Certify Pennsylvania Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULI WINTJEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DENNY's, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00069-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeking certification of the "Pennsylvania Class" defined as: "All Tipped Employees who worked for Defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania between at any point between January 22, 2016 and August 1, 2019, and were hired prior to January 1, 2019;" 2. appointing Juli Wintjen as class representative; 3. appointing Carlson Lynch, LLP and Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the form of the notice. Denny's is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain. It operates over 1,700 restaurants in the United States, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, The Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Japan, Honduras, New Zealand, Qatar, Philippines, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Curaçao, and the United Kingdom. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Tr75z7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiff Juli Wintjen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are: Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com eavery@carlsonlynch.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225 Malvern, PA 19355 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com DENTAL EQUITIES: Court Reopens Scoma Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A. v. Dental Equities, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00041 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John L. Badalamenti entered an order directing the Clerk to re-open the case because the Defendant has filed its response to Plaintiffs' second amended motion for class certification. The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory actions involving testrictions on use of telephone equipment.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must File Reply on Class Cert. Bid by June 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HINTON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01295 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge John D Bates entered an order that: 1. Upon consideration of the parties' proposed briefing schedule, and the entire record , it is hereby ordered that the telephone conference scheduled for May 18 is canceled. 2. The defendant's deadline for answering or otherwise responding to plaintiff's complaint is stayed until further order of this Court; and 3. The following schedule shall govern further briefing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- The plaintiff shall file a supplement to her motion for preliminary injunction by not later than June 1, 2021; -- The defendant shall file its responses to plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and class certification by not later than June 15, 2021; and -- The plaintiff shall file her replies thereto by not later than June 22, 2021. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC] DIXIE GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil Action No. 19-CV-02448-JFL-003. A lawsuit in Georgia was originally filed on November 26, 2019 and is presented as a class action lawsuit by and on behalf of a class of persons who obtain drinking water from the City of Rome, Georgia and the Floyd County Water Department (and similarly situated persons) (generally, for these purposes, residents of Floyd County) (styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil Action No. 19-CV-02448-JFL-003). On January 10, 2020, the Class Action Lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division (styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-0008-AT). The plaintiffs in this case allege their damages include without limitation the surcharges incurred for the costs of partially filtering the chemicals from their drinking water. The Complaint requests a jury trial and asserts damages unspecified in amount, in addition to requests for injunctive relief. The Company has filed a response to the Complaint, intends to defend the matter vigorously, and is unable to estimate its potential exposure, if any, at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells floor covering products for residential and commercial applications primarily in the United States. The company was founded in 1920 and is based in Dalton, Georgia. DNH/ML EMPOWER: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Sept. 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Wellington, v. DNH/ML Empower Federal Credit Union, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01367-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before November 30, 2021. -- Class Certification Motions are to be filed on or before September 8, 2021 and Dispositive Motions are to be filed on or before December 14, 2021. -- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before July 2, 2021. -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before July 2, 2021. -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or before August 2, 2021 Empower FCU is a full-service financial institution that provides savings, loan, and transaction services to members in Central New York, and eight counties in New York State. Headquarters are located in Central New York. As a credit union, Empower is a financial cooperative and is not-for-profit. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fWDWmN at no extra charge.[CC] DOUG SCHULTE: Bid to Continue Class Certification Hearing Sustained ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaw, et al., v. Schulte, Case No. 6:19-cv-01343 (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order sustaining unopposed request to continue hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Judge Vratil said, "Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification previously set for May 13, 2021 at 10:00 AM was cancelled as stated in a previous notice. New hearing date will be set a later date if deemed appropriate." The nature of suit states civil rights.[CC] EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss Garfield Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Robert Garfield, is pending. On August 13, 2020 Tiandong Tang commenced a class action lawsuit against the Company, its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey, and on August 26, 2020 Jimmie A. McAdams and Judy P. McAdams commenced a class action lawsuit against the Company and its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York. The Securities Class Actions seek damages and other relief based on alleged violations of federal securities laws in the context of the DFC Announcement of the potential DFC Loan and DFC Pharmaceutical Project. Since the filing of the Securities Class Actions, procedural activities have been ongoing relating to the determination of venue and lead plaintiff. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the Securities Class Actions. In addition to the Securities Class Actions, on December 29, 2020 Robert Garfield commenced a class action lawsuit against the Company and each of the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Mercer County, New Jersey seeking equitable relief and damages in favor of the Company based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Companys Board of Directors associated with alleged false and misleading proxy statement disclosure (the "Fiduciary Class Action"). The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Fiduciary Class Action on April 13, 2021. The Company has also received three requests under New Jersey law demanding, among other things, that the Company take certain actions in response to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to option grants and securities transactions in the context of the DFC Announcement and alleged proxy statement disclosure deficiencies. The Company has responded to and engaged in discussions concerning these requests, and its response and discussions may serve as the basis for the requestors to bring shareholder derivative lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend the Fiduciary Matters. Eastman Kodak Company is a global technology company focused on print and advanced materials and chemicals. Kodak provides industry-leading hardware, software, consumables and services primarily to customers in commercial print, packaging, publishing, manufacturing and entertainment. Kodak is committed to environmental stewardship and ongoing leadership in developing sustainable solutions. EBIX INC: Teifke Putative Class Action Underway ----------------------------------------------- Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Christine Marie Teifke. On February 22, 2021, Christine Marie Teifke, a purported purchaser of Ebix, Inc. securities, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of herself and others who purchased or acquired Ebix securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021. The complaint asserts claims against Ebix, Inc., Robin Raina, and Steven M. Hamil, for purported violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Ebix, Inc. made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about an audit of the company's gift card business in India and its internal controls over the gift and prepaid card revenue transaction cycle. The complaint also asserts a claim against Robin Raina and Steven M. Hamil for purported violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of the same facts. The complaint seeks, among other relief, damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Ebix, Inc. provides software and e-commerce solutions to insurance, finance, healthcare, and e-learning industries. The company was formerly known as Delphi Systems, Inc. and changed its name to Ebix, Inc. in December 2003. Ebix, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia. EDUCATION & ENTERTAINMENT: Warner TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Warner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Education & Entertainment, Inc. doing business as: Nipsey's Restaurant, Case No. 21-008475-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida on May 27, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21988-CMA to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nipsey's Restaurant -- https://www.nipseys.com/ -- aims to create a community-focused restaurant, world-renowned for its best in class dining and customer-centric experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq. Thomas John Patti, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com tom@jibraellaw.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kishasha Bruce Sharp, Esq. K.B. SHARP 99 NW 183 Street, Suite 240 Miami, FL 33169 Phone: (305) 493-0644 Fax: 493-0646 Email: kbsharp@bellsouth.net EL TORO LOCO: Ceja Files Suit in California Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Toro Loco Market, et al. The case is styled as Jose Ceja, on behalf of others members of the general public similarly situated v. El Toro Loco Market, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Toro Loco Lina LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Express Wholesale, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Case No. BCV-21-101202 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 27, 2021). The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." El Toro Loco Market is a Mexican grocery store in Yuba City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin E. A. Pike, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8010 Fax: Not Available Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com ENTERPRISE LEASING: Benson Bid to Certify Class Partially Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELVA BENSON v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF ORLANDO, LLC; and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-00891-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification: a. The following class is certified for the WARN Act claim against Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.: "All Enterprise employees who worked at or reported to Enterprise facilities in the United States and were terminated without cause on or about April 24, 2020, or within 14 days of April 24, 2020, or in anticipation of, or as the foreseeable consequence of, the mass layoff or plant closing ordered on or about April 24, 2020, and who are affected employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(5), who do not file a timely request to opt-out of the class, and who also did not sign a severance agreement with Enterprise. b. The Court appoints the Plaintiff Elva Benson as Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative. c. The Court appoints Brandon J. Hill, Esq. and Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. as co-lead Class Counsel. d. In all other respects, the Motion is denied. The Court said, "Benson argues a class action is a superior method of resolving the WARN Act claim because small individual payouts make individual suits impracticable. The Defendants argue a class action is inferior, as there would be no way to try the case without splintering off into mini-trials. As discussed, the individual questions are small and manageable, so there is no need for "mini-trials." As the potential individual economic payout is small (less than $6,000, on average) and there is no indication any other plaintiff has begun an individual action against any Enterprise organization on these WARN Act claims, Benson has shown a class action is the superior method of adjudicating these claims." Enterprise Leasing provides transportation solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SqxdcR at no extra charge.[CC] EPIC LANDSCAPE: Ordered to Produce Albelo Class Records by June 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RADAMES MOLINA ALBELO, o/b/o himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-0454-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, ordered the Defendant to the electronic pay records for the putative Rule 23 class members by June 3, 2021. The case is a collective action lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Rule 23 class action claims for various state law causes of action, including breach of contract. On May 23, 2018, the Court conditionally certified a collective class of current and former landscape laborers who worked for the Defendant. A motion to certify a Rule 23 class is currently pending, as is a motion to de-certify the collective class, and cross-motions for summary judgment. Now before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. The Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its May 6 Order directing it to provide electronic pay records for putative Rule 23 class members. In short, the Defendant argues the order was incorrect and will lead to an overly broad document production. On May 4, 2021, the parties contacted the Court's courtroom deputy to schedule a discovery dispute teleconference concerning how the Court's Dec. 8, 2020 Order, should be interpreted. A law clerk emailed the parties back, writing, "Before Judge Kays schedules anything, he would like to know more about the dispute. Could the parties email me back with a summary of the dispute? The Plaintiff's counsel replied first outlining the dispute and summarizing his position. Shortly afterward, the defense counsel sent the email about the dispute that concerns an interpretation of Doc. 181, an Order addressing Epic's objections to the Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production. The parties' description of the dispute and the explanation of their positions was equivalent to the one page summary from each party the Court typically reviews prior to ruling on a discovery dispute pursuant to Local Rule 37.1. After reviewing the emails, and in light of the rapidly approaching trial date, the Court determined -- as it often does -- that it did not need to hold a formal teleconference with the parties to resolve this discovery dispute. The Court issued a short order which in relevant part stated: "The Court's prior order is admittedly ambiguous. While the Defendant's reading of the December 8 order is not unreasonable, given the rapidly approaching July trial date, the likelihood the Court will certify a Rule 23 class, and the Plaintiffs' counsel's need for this information to calculate damages for the putative class, the prior order should be interpreted to mean the Defendant will provide electronic pay records for all putative Rule 23 class members as well. The Defendant will produce these records by May 27, 2021, unless the Plaintiffs agree in writing to their production at some later time." On May 14, the Defendant filed the pending eight-page motion for reconsideration which expands upon the arguments made in the May 4 email, but does not provide any new facts or law. After carefully reviewing the pending motion and re-reading the December 8 Order, the parties' May 4 emails, and the Court's May 6 Order, Judge Kays sees no error in the May 6 Order that merits reconsideration. Accordingly, he denied the motion for reconsideration. The Defendant will produce the records by June 3, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/hd39cm38 from Leagle.com. EVMO INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------- EVmo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Jason Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235 (SVW) and William Koch v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al, 20-cv-8591 (SVW), is stayed. These two copy-cat actions were filed on September 9, 2020 and September18, 2020, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, both cases as purported class actions. Plaintiffs Jason Hamlin and William Koch each claim to have purchased the Company's stock "traceable to the initial public offering (IPO)" and like plaintiffs Vanbecelaere and Rung in the state court actions, purport to bring a securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's stock. The first amended complaint alleges false statements and material omissions of material fact in connection with the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's November 14, 201 9 IPO. The defendants include directors of the company and the Underwriters to the IPO, Westpark Capital and Aegis Capital Corp. The federal court has consolidated the two matters for all purposes, and an initial status conference has been scheduled and held. As with the Vanbecelaere state court case, the Company denies liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed all materially adverse facts, events and occurrences in its Registration Statement and related public filings, and the complaint's alleged violations of Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 are baseless. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit in federal court. EVmo said, "All the securities lawsuits, in both federal and state court, are presently stayed pending the outcome of this mediation." EVmo, Inc. was formed on June 21, 2016 under the name "YayYo, LLC," which was converted into a Delaware corporation pursuant to the unanimous written consent of the company's former manager and members in a transaction intended to be tax-free under the Internal Revenue Code. All of YayYo, LLC's liabilities and assets, including its intellectual property, were automatically transferred to the Company and the Company has assumed ownership of such assets and liabilities. The Company now operates as a "C" corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. On September 11, 2020, YayYo, Inc. changed its name to Rideshare Rental, Inc. On March 1, 2021, the Company changed its name from Rideshare Rental, Inc. to EVmo, Inc. The Company is a holding company operating through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Distinct Cars, LLC and Rideshare Car Rentals, LLC. EVMO INC: Rung and Vanbecelaere Suits Stayed -------------------------------------------- EVmo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876 and Michael Vanbecelaere v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066 are stayed. On July 22 and July 23, 2020 two, twin actions (with virtually identical complaints) were filed in the LA Superior Court. The State Case complaints differed only by a few words and the random punctuation mark. Plaintiff Ivan Rung and Michael Vanbecelaere each claimed to have purchased the Company's stock in the IPO ; they purported to bring a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's stock pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's November 14, 2019 initial public offering (IPO). Lifting allegations freely from the FirstFire case complaint, the State Case Complaint is vague about alleged misrepresentation and material omissions, detailing instead a supposed chronology of events leading to the Company's voluntary decision to delist its stock from NASDAQ following some business setbacks in early 2020. The Company announced in an 8K filed on February 10, 2020 that it was voluntarily delisting from NASDAQ. Although YayYo obviously admits that its stock was delisted on NASDAQ, Company has denied liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed all materially adverse facts and occurrences in its Registration Statement, related public filings and other public statements, and the Complaint's alleged violations of Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 are baseless. EVmo said, "If the mediation is unsuccessful, YayYo intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit as it entirely lacks merit. The litigation is presently stayed." EVmo, Inc. was formed on June 21, 2016 under the name "YayYo, LLC," which was converted into a Delaware corporation pursuant to the unanimous written consent of the company's former manager and members in a transaction intended to be tax-free under the Internal Revenue Code. All of YayYo, LLC's liabilities and assets, including its intellectual property, were automatically transferred to the Company and the Company has assumed ownership of such assets and liabilities. The Company now operates as a "C" corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. On September 11, 2020, YayYo, Inc. changed its name to Rideshare Rental, Inc. On March 1, 2021, the Company changed its name from Rideshare Rental, Inc. to EVmo, Inc. The Company is a holding company operating through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Distinct Cars, LLC and Rideshare Car Rentals, LLC. EXP REALTY: Wright Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE WRIGHT, JORGE VALDES, EDWIN DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXP REALTY, LLC, Case No. 6:18-cv-01851-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the class; 2. appointing him as class representative; 3. appointing Kaufman P.A. and Law Offices of Stefan Coleman P.A. as class counsel; and 4. establishing a deadline for submission of a proposed class notice and notice plan. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a single class consisting of: "all persons who received prerecorded calls from eXp realtors made using either of the two dialers used by eXp realtors to make prerecorded calls to Plaintiff Diaz (a Mojo dialer or a Vulcan7 dialer) and for whom the lead source for the call is identified as either of the three lead generators used by eXp realtors to obtain Plaintiff Diaz's phone number, Mojo, Landvoice, or Vulcan7. The class is limited only to persons who received prerecorded calls made using the exact same dialers based on the exact same lead sources as the prerecorded calls by eXp's realtors to Plaintiff Diaz." eXp's realtors purchased leads lists of potential property listings and called them using prerecorded message delivering dialers that the realtors purchased from the same companies they purchased the leads lists from. Neither eXp, eXp's realtors, nor the companies that sold the leads lists had consent of any kind from any of the consumers in the leads lists. This is because the companies eXp's realtors purchased the leads lists from generated the leads by matching property addresses (which were associated either with expired listings on the MLS, for sale by owner properties, or properties within a certain radius of other active listings) with the names of the properties' owners and their phone numbers from public records and data organizations, like LexisNexis. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUElGo at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class, are: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26 th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com FAST AC: Court Junks Walters Class Suit without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY WALTERS v. FAST AC, LLC and FTL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a FTL CAPITAL FINANCE, Case No. 2:19-cv-00070-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John L. Badalamenti entered an order: 1. granting FTL's motion for summary judgment to Count VIII of the second amended complaint; 2. dismissing Count VIII for lack of standing; 3. dismissing Counts I–VII for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to refile in state court; and 4. directing the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment in favor of Defendants in conformance with this Order, and close this case. The Court said, "Because the TILA claim has been dismissed for lack of standing, which touches on subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court has no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Accordingly, Mr. Walters' remaining state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to be filed in a Florida state court, should he choose to do so." The events leading up to this case began when a technician named "Mike" who was employed by Defendant Fast AC, LLC told Plaintiff Gary Walters that the ductwork in his air conditioning unit (which Fast AC previously installed) needed to be replaced. Although Mr. Walters was initially hesitant about the cost of the work, Mike assured Mr. Walters that he could secure financing. Mike then accessed a computer and e-signed several documents on Mr. Walters's behalf -- none of which Mr. Walters had a chance to read. Due to Mike's actions, Mr. Walters "signed" a credit agreement with FTL Capital Partners LLC, which contained disclosures consistent with an open-end transaction under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). FTL provides financing products to contractors who install heating and cooling equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yF3u0B at no extra charge.[CC] FISHER INVESTMENTS: Bryant Must File Class Status Bid by Oct. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK BRYANT v. FISHER INVESTMENTS INC, Case No. 3:21-cv-05262-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge e James L. Robart entered scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to complete discovery on September 6, 2021 class certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for Plaintiffs to file October 6, 2021 motion for class certification (noted on the fourth Friday after filing and service of the motion pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree to different times for filing the response and reply memoranda): The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall inform the court immediately should Plaintiff(s) at any time decide not to seek class certification. The dates set in this scheduling order are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the court, not by agreement of the parties. The court will alter these dates only upon good cause shown. The failure to complete discovery within the time allowed will not ordinarily constitute good cause. As required by LCR 37(a), all discovery matters are to be resolved by agreement if possible. In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court "direct[s] that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court" by notifying Ashleigh Drecktrah at (206) 370-8520. Fisher Investments is an independent money management firm headquartered in Camas, Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0GKng at no extra charge.[CC] FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dubose Must File Bid for Class Cert. by Sept. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIA DUBOSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03841-SCJ-WEJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Walter E. Johnson entered an order that phase one discovery shall close on August 23, 2021. Judge Johnson says that the Plaintiff will file her motion for class certification by September 22, 2021, the Defendant will have 30 days to respond, and any reply shall be due 14 days later. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vsIhVs at no extra charge.[CC] FLIRT NY: Bid to Dismiss Nikonov Disability Bias Claim Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Denys Nikonov, v. Flirt NY, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07128-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of Action for disability discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The parties shall appear for a remote final pretrial conference on May 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. At the scheduled time, the parties shall each separately call (888) 278-0296 (or (214) 765-0479) and enter access code 6489745, says the Court. The Court said, the Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL for discrimination on the basis of disability (migraines and swollen feet) are barred by Plaintiff's having sought workers' compensation benefits for workplace-related injuries (to his feet, back and ankles). However, while one who receives workers' compensation benefits for accidental workplace-related injuries may not seek other recovery from his employer for such injuries, there is no bar to his seeking recovery for intentional wrongs, such as discrimination. See, e.g., Searight v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc., No. 02-CV-00604 (SJF) (AKT), 2006 WL 8441332, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. July 5, 2006) ("[I]t is well-established that the workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine does not preclude discrimination claims under the NYHRL."). A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fU07Kr at no extra charge.[CC] FORTRESS BIOTECH: Cushman Putative Securities Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fortress Biotech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a purported securities class action suit entitled, Cushman v. Fortress Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05767. In November 2020, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, putatively on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Fortress securities between December 11, 2019 and October 9, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged in connection therewith. The case is captioned Cushman v. Fortress Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05767, and names as defendants the Company and two of the company's officers. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose various facts and circumstances with respect to a New Drug Application filed by Avenue Therapeutics, Inc., the company's partner company, regarding IV Tramadol, Avenue's lead product candidate. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages as well as attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The action is in the early stages of litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously contest the claims. Fortress Biotech, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to acquiring, developing and commercializing pharmaceutical and biotechnology products and product candidates, which the company do at the Fortress level, at the company's majority-owned and majority-controlled subsidiaries and joint ventures, and at entities the company founded and in which it maintains significant minority ownership positions. The company is based in New York, New York. FPI MANAGEMENT: Archibeque Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FPI Management, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Archibeque on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FPI Management, Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00300923-CU-MT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 17, 2021). The case type is stated as "Mass Tort Civil - Unlimited." FPI Management -- https://fpimgt.com/ -- is a privately owned, third party, multifamily property management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN Phone: (415) 358-6913 Email: mram@forthepeople.com GEETA BROWN: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to Nov. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE CASTILLO et. al., v. GEETA B. BROWN Case No. 2:20-cv-00243 (D. Maine), the Hon. Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for the parties to respond to discovery requests is extended to June 30, 2021; -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to depose fact witnesses is extended to August 9, 2021; -- Deadline for the Defendant to depose five class members is extended to August 27, 2021; -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to designate expert witnesses is extended to August 27, 2021; -- Deadline for Defendant to complete depositions of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses is extended to September 20, 2021; -- Deadline for Defendant to designate expert witnesses is extended to October 4, 2021; -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to complete depositions of Defendant's expert witnesses is extended to October 28, 2021; -- Deadline to file motion for class certification is extended to November 22, 2021; -- Deadline to file response to motion for class certification is extended to December 20, 2021; -- Deadline to file reply memorandum in support of motion for class certification is extended to January 3, 2022. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Clifford, Esq. Clifford & Clifford, LLC Post Road Center 62 Portland Rd., Suite 37 Kennebunk, ME 04043 Telephone: (207) 985-3200 E-mail: james@cliffordclifford.com The Defendant is represented by: James B. Haddow, Esq. PETRUCCELLI MARTIN & HADDOW LLP Two Monument Sq. Suite 900 P.O. Box 17555 Portland ME 04112-8555 Telephone: (207) 775-0200 E-mail: jhaddow@pmhlegal.com GEICO INDEMNITY: McCoy Has Until July 30 to File Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCOY v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05597 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered an order that the Plaintiff's class certification motion and disclosure of class certification expert is to be submitted to the Defendant by July 30, 2021. Judge Martinotti says that by September 13, 2021, GEICO shall provide it's opposition to class certification and disclosure of class certification experts to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification is to be provided to Defendant by October 4, 2021. All submissions are to be filed by October 4, 2021. Disclosure of merits experts under Rule 26 is to be provided by October 18, 2021. Disclosure of merits rebuttal experts under Rule 26 is to be provided by November 19, 2021. All discovery is to be completed by December 17, 2021. A telephone status conference shall be held on September 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., the Judge adds. The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance. GEICO Indemnity Company operates as an insurance company.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Bossart Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSEPH BOSSART, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-CV-11057 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. The case is a consumer class action filed on behalf of a prospective class consisting of persons across the country who "purchased or leased any 2015 to 2019 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 or 2017 to 2019 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced by GM. The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles (which are sub-models of the Corvette line) have wheels with inferior material which is cast, rather than forged, and is of insufficient strength, and in an insufficient quantity, to withstand the torque and power input from the drivetrain. On information and belief, GM also used less material than necessary in order to try to save un-sprung weight (i.e., weight that is not borne by the vehicle's suspension). As a result, the rims are not strong enough and crack and deform under normal driving conditions. As a result of the Wheel Defect, wobbling conditions, out of round conditions, and deformation of the rim flange occur which causes vibration perceptible to the driver through the body of the vehicle and through the steering wheel at various speeds. Cracks in the barrel cause a loss of air pressure and an unsafe condition and cause the rim to lose strength and become vulnerable to failure under loading conditions such as braking. Although GM was sufficiently aware of the Wheel Defect from preproduction testing, design failure mode analysis, calls to its customer service hotline, and customer complaints made to dealers, this knowledge and information was exclusively in the possession of GM and its network of dealers and, therefore, unavailable to consumers. Despite access to aggregate internal data, the Plaintiffs allege that GM has actively concealed the existence of the defect, telling customers, as cited below, that the wheels are not defective and that the cracked and deformed wheels are caused by potholes or other driver error, without any such evidence to support external causes. GM sells the Class Vehicles with a 3-year, 36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty. However, when the class members bring their vehicles to GM's authorized dealerships requesting coverage for the Wheel Defect, GM is systematically denying coverage. As a result, the Class Members are paying thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to repair, and if they purchase the replacements from GM, to replace the wheels with equally defective wheels. There are 18 named plaintiffs in this case. Collectively, they are citizens of and/or purchased their Class Vehicle in the states of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class, consisting of "[a]ll persons and entities in the United States who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle," as well as 13 statewide subclasses. The proposed classes, the class representatives, and 40 claims are as follows: 1. Nationwide Class: Breach of written warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) (Count I); breach of implied warranty under the MMWA (Count II); and unjust enrichment (Count III). 2. CLRA Subclass (Barrington, Holguin): Violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Count IV). 3. California Subclass (Barrington, Holguin): Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. and Pro. Code Section 17500 et seq.) (Count V); breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Count VI); and breach of express warranty (Count VII). 4. Florida Subclass (Rochford): Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count VIII); breach of express warranty (Count IX); and breach of implied warranty (Count X). 5. Illinois Subclass (Mirenda): Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count XI); breach of express warranty (Count XII); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count XIII). 6. Massachusetts Subclass (Lupis): Violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Count XIV); breach of express warranty (Count XV); and breach of implied warranty (Count XVI). 7. Michigan Subclass (Czajka, Kalkstein): Violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Count XVII); breach of express warranty (Count XVIII); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count XIX). 8. New Hampshire Subclass (Goldberg, Smiths): Violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (Count XX); breach of express warranty (Count XXI); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count XXII). 9. New Jersey Subclass (Chookazian): Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Count XXIII); breach of express warranty (Count XXIV); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count XXV). 10. New York Subclass (Williams): Violation of the New York Commercial Deceptive Acts or Practices Law (Gen. Bus. Law Section 349) (Count XXVI) and the New York False Advertising Law (Gen. Bus. Law Section 350) (Count XXVII); and breach of express warranty (Count XXVIII). 11. Pennsylvania Subclass (Bossart, Roth): Violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law (Count XXIX); breach of express warranty (Count XXX); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count XXXI). 12. Ohio Subclass (Galzers): Violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (Count XXXII); breach of express warranty (Count XXXIII); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count XXXIV). 13. South Carolina Subclass (Turner): Violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count XXXV); breach of express warranty (Count XXXVI); and breach of implied warranty (Count XXXVII). 14. Texas Subclass (Barker): Violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (Count XXXVIII); breach of express warranty (Count XXXVIX); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count XL). For relief, the Plaintiffs request (1) class certification; (2) a declaration that the Defendant is financially responsible for notifying all the Class Members about the defective nature of the wheels, including the need for periodic maintenance"; (3) compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages; (4) any and all remedies available under the aforementioned statutes; (5) an order for disgorgement; (6) attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest; and (7) injunctive relief. In the instant motion, the Defendant seeks "to dismiss all claims in the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Discussion I. Express Warranty Claims (Counts VII, IX, XII, XV, XVIII, XXI, XXIV, XXVIII, XXX, XXXIII, XXVI, XXXVIX) To state a claim for breach of express warranty, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the seller made an affirmation of fact or promise to the buyer which relates to the goods at issue, (2) the fact or promise was part of the basis of the bargain, and (3) the express warranty was breached. The Defendant concedes that it did make a promise to the Plaintiffs which formed part of the basis of their bargain -- i.e., GM's New Vehicle Limited Warranty ("NVLW"). The question regarding this claim is whether the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the Defendant breached the NVLW. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' express warranty claim should be dismissed because (1) "the Plaintiffs' theory is clearly premised on an alleged design defect, not a defect due to materials or workmanship"; (2) "the Plaintiffs plead no facts establishing that their alleged tire and wheel issues were caused by something other than 'normal wear' and 'road hazard damage' that the NVLWs exclude from coverage"; (3) various Plaintiffs failed to notify defendant of the alleged vehicle issues, failed to present their vehicles to an authorized dealer for repairs, and/or altered their Class Vehicles with non-GM parts or through non-GM repairs, all of which would void GM's warranty coverage; and (4) certain Plaintiffs failed to allege that they were within the warranty's stated mileage and/or time limit when they sought the relevant repairs. Judge Friedman concludes that, based on the facts alleged, the Plaintiffs' claims should not be dismissed for failure to seek repairs within the NVLW's time and milage limits. While the Defendant contends that the warranty coverage for certain Class Vehicles was voided by wheel repairs at non-GM repair shops, the NVLW requires more than repairs or alterations to void its coverage. In relevant part, the NVWL states that it "does not cover any damage or failure resulting from modification or alteration to the vehicle's original equipment." Nothing in the complaint indicates that the wheel alterations or modifications caused the Class Vehicles' damage or failure. Rather, the Class Vehicles were allegedly exhibiting the wheel defects prior to alteration. Consequently, the alterations mentioned in the complaint do not provide a basis for dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims. For these reasons, the Judge concludes that all of the Plaintiffs' claims of breach of express warranty survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss. II. Implied Warranty Claims (Counts VI, X, XIII, XVI, XIX, XXII, XXV, XXXI, XXXIV, XXXVII, XL) The Defendant next argues that the Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims should be dismissed because they do not allege a persistent defect that renders their vehicles unmerchantable. In addition to this blanket argument, the Defendant contends that certain Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims should be dismissed because they "lack privity with GM and allege only economic damages," while others should be dismissed "because they do not allege they presented their vehicles for repair within the warranty period." Based on the facts alleged in the complaint and the arguments raised in the parties' briefs, Judge Friedman concludes that the Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims survive dismissal. Under Michigan law, plaintiffs are not required to allege privity to successfully state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability." The Plaintiffs contend that "pursuant to the specific language in the express warranties issued by GM, both express and implied warranties are intended to extend to all owners and subsequent owners of the Class Vehicles." The Defendant does not refute this assertion. As with the express warranty claims of these five plaintiffs, the Judge concludes that their implied warranty claims survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Although questions of fact remain as to vehicle milage or the nature of the repairs requested, Plaintiffs Mirenda, Barker, Holguin, and Kalkstein all sufficiently allege that they sought repairs at a GM dealer within the NVLW coverage period. As to Plaintiff Turner, because the wheel defect was latent and questions of fact remain regarding the Defendant's pre-sale knowledge of the defect, the Judge concludes that it would be premature to dismiss Turner's implied warranty claim at this stage in the litigation. For these reasons, he concludes that the Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims may proceed. III. Unjust Enrichment (Count III) The Defendant next contends that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims for two reasons. First, unjust enrichment is not available where there is an adequate remedy at law. Second, Plaintiffs Czajka, Kalkstein, Chookazian, Bossart, Roth, the Glazers, and Barker did not confer a benefit on GM. Under the laws of their respective states -- Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Texas -- unjust enrichment requires the Plaintiff to allege facts showing that the Plaintiff conferred a direct benefit on the Defendant. The Court has previously stated that as an equitable remedy, unjust enrichment is not available where there is an adequate remedy at law, citing In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch Prods. Liability Litig., 664 F.Supp.2d 752, 763 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Courts have regularly dismissed unjust enrichment claims filed against automobile manufacturers where a valid, enforceable express warranty covers the same subject matter as the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims. Because GM's NVLW covers the express warranty claims raised in the complaint, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed. IV. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claims (Counts I, II) The Defendant next contends that plaintiffs' MMWA claims should be dismissed for two reasons. First, it argues that because the complaint fails to name 100 Plaintiffs, the Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims. Second, it asserts that because the Plaintiffs' warranty claims fail under state law, their MMWA claims necessarily fail too. Given his decision not to dismiss the Plaintiffs' express and implied warranty claims, Judge Friedman concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims under the MMWA survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss as well. While the instant complaint lists only 18 named Plaintiffs, he believes it would be premature to dismiss the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims at this early stage in litigation, as the Court has yet to address class certification. V. Consumer Protection Claims (Counts IV, V, VIII, XI, XIV, XVII, XX, XXIII, XXVI, XXVII, XXIX, XXXII, XXXV, XXXVIII) The Defendant next argues that all of the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims should be dismissed because they have failed to sufficiently allege GM's knowledge of the defect prior to sale ("pre-sale" or "pre-purchase" knowledge). It further argues that each claim should be dismissed for reasons specific to each state statute. In addition to pre-sale knowledge, the Defendant argues that plaintiffs fail to adequately allege reliance (under the California and Pennsylvania statutes); or deceptive, misleading, or unfair acts or omissions, as well as causation (under the Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York statutes). The Defendant also challenges the ability of certain Plaintiffs to raise claims under the laws of the state in which they live or the state in which they purchased their Class Vehicle. These Plaintiffs do not live in the state of purchase, and the Defendant contends that the laws at issue either apply only to the location of purchase or only to state citizens. Finally, the Defendant contends that certain Plaintiffs are barred from raising their claims by statutes of limitations (under the CLRA and Ohio statute), prohibitions against class claims (under the South Carolina statute), or notice requirements (under the Texas statute). Given the number and nature of the consumer complaints catalogued by the Plaintiffs, combined with the general allegations regarding GM's testing and data gathering processes, Judge Friedman concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently met their burden under Rule 9. Although the Judge recognizes that some of the consumer complaints were submitted after certain named Plaintiffs purchased their Class Vehicles, the Plaintiffs have included enough information in the complaint to survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Likewise, the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to overcome the Defendant's statute-specific challenges. VI. Request for Injunctive Relief Finally, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief should be dismissed. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the Defendant from further deceptive distribution, sales, and lease practices with respect to Class Vehicles; compelling Defendant to issue a voluntary recall for the Class Vehicles; compelling the Defendant to remove, repair, and/or replace the Class Vehicles' defective wheels with suitable alternative product(s) that do not contain the defects alleged; enjoining Defendant from selling the Class Vehicles with the misleading information; and/or compelling the Defendant to reform its warranty, in a manner deemed to be appropriate by the Court, to cover the injury alleged and to notify all the Class Members that such warranty has been reformed. The Defendant argues that the claim for relief should be dismissed for two reasons. First, the Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law because their claimed injuries are redressable by a damages award. Second, the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief because they have not alleged that they are likely to be harmed by GM's alleged conduct in the future. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that they seek injunctive relief under the California, Michigan, and Ohio consumer protection statutes "as explicitly permitted by those statutes," and that they meet the threshold for Article III standing as to the requested relief because there is "a sufficient likelihood" that they "will again be wronged in a similar way." At this early stage in the litigation, Judge Friedman concludes that the Defendant's instant challenge regarding remedies is premature. The Defendant is free to raise the issue of injunctive relief if the Plaintiffs prevail on the merits. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Friedman granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss as follows: The Defendant's motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. The Defendant's motion is denied as to (1) the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims; (2) the Plaintiffs' express warranty claims; (3) plaintiffs' implied warranty claims, (4) the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims, and (5) the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/46p6khr8 from Leagle.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Court OK's Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Lisa G. Wood entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file his Class certification motion 60 days after a ruling on GM's forthcoming motion to dismiss. General Motors is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uBpnKR at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Hackler Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for him to file his Class Certification Motion to 60 days after a ruling on GM's forthcoming motion to dismiss. General Motors is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fMsz0E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. Benjamin R. Keen, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. Tyner D. Helms, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 2839 Paces Ferry Rd SE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 751-1162 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Ben.keen@beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com Tyner.Helms@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES LEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Montana Corp., JAMES B. LEE, and TRACY D. LEE, husband and wife, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, GEICO INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, and GEICO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Case No. 9:20-cv-00068-DWM (D. Mont.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order for a two-week extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until June 7, 2021. The Defendants request the extension of time to allow them to fully respond to all of the arguments and allegations in Plaintiffs' motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Plaintiffs' counsel Allan McGarvey has been contacted regarding this motion and Plaintiffs do not oppose. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bUWKBV at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Judah M. Gersh, Esq. Brian M. Joos, Esq. VISCOMI, GERSH, SIMPSON & JOOS, PLLP 121 Wisconsin A venue Whitefish, MT 59937 E-mail: gersh@bigskyattorneys.com joos@bigskyattorneys.com randi@bigskyattorneys.com - and - Evan F. Danno, Esq. DANNO LAW FIRM, P.C. 725 South Main Street Kalispell, MT 59901 E-mail: evan@dannolawfirm.com - and - Alan J. Lerner, Esq. LERNER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 1158 Kalispell, MT 59903-1158 E-mail: lerner@lernerlawmt.com - and - Allan M. McGarvey, Esq. McGARVEY, HEBERLING, SULLIVAN & LACEY, P.C. 345 First Ave. E. Kalispell, MT 59901 E-mail: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com jmariman@mcgarveylaw.com dleftridge@mcgarveylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ian McIntosh, Esq. Mac Morris, Esq. CROWLEY FLECK PLLP 1915 South 19th Avenue Bozeman, MT 59719-0969 Telephone: (406) 556-1430 E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com wmorris@crowleyfleck.com - and - Sheila Carmody, Esq. Courtney Henson, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren St., Suite 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6268 E-mail: scarmody@swlaw.com chenson@swlaw.com GRAND CANYON: Bid to Certify Class in Miller RICO-ACFA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHRISTIANE MILLER, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY, INC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00652-P (N.D. Tex.), Judge Mark T. Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff Miller brings the case on behalf of herself and a putative class composed of "all Grand Canyon University students who have been enrolled in an online professional graduate degree or certificate program that is not accredited in the state where they are employed or, if not employed, where they reside." Ms. Miller submits claims of fraudulent omission, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violations of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the Arizona RICO Act, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act ("ACFA") against Defendants Grand Canyon University, Inc. ("GCU") and Grand Canyon Education, Inc. ("GCE"). GCU, headquartered in Arizona and incorporated in Delaware, is a primarily online university whose students live throughout the United States. Like many universities, GCU also makes use of recruiters (called "advisors") whose job it is to find candidates, discuss GCU's programs and benefits, and encourage them to apply to GCU. Ms. Miller, a Texas citizen, began searching for Texas-accredited online graduate degree programs approximately two years ago. After completing an online form, a GCE advisor named Nicholas Abruzesse contacted Miller. The two engaged in several phone calls where Abruzesse assured Miller that "she could achieve her goal of becoming a certified teacher if she signed up with GCU" and "informed [her] that GCU's graduate programs were accredited in Texas." Miller alleges that, based on Abruzesse's assurances, she enrolled and began taking courses with GCU. A few months after she began taking courses, Miller alleges that she learned Abruzesse's representations were false during a conversation with her field experience counselor, Sara. When Miller told Sara that she wanted to be licensed in Texas, Sara told her that "the GCU program that Mr. Abruzesse had enrolled her in could not lead to a job in Texas like she had been assured." Upset, Miller suspended her pursuit of a degree from GCU and claims that she "would not have enrolled in GCU if she had not been misled about the program." The Defendants contend that she left GCU for a reason entirely unrelated to the program -- that GCU expelled her because she failed to disclose her criminal history as part of an FBI background check required by her education curriculum. Ms. Miller later filed the instant action. She alleges a variety of state and federal common law and statutory fraud and RICO claims. Miller claims that approximately 50,000 GCU students sustained injuries sufficiently similar to hers to be included in the class. The Defendants oppose class certification on numerous grounds, arguing that Miller's proposed class does not satisfy the prerequisites under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3); that the class is unascertainable; and that Miller sets forth a theory of fraud that lacks any basis in fact or "logical coherence." Judge Pittman opines that Miller failed to prove the requirements under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). He finds, among others, that (i) Miller's common questions are not common at all, as providing answers to them would fail to produce any evidence for the putative class's claims; (ii) Miller's claims and defenses are atypical of the class members' claims and defenses; (iii) because Miller failed to show that common questions predominate over questions only affecting individual members, she failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3); and (iv) Miller did not prove 23(b)(2)'s requirements. For these reasons, Judge Pittman determines that Miller failed to carry her burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Accordingly, he finds that the Motion for Class Certification should be and is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jr6ysfw from Leagle.com. GREENSPOON MARDER: Initial OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMMA ROCK, as Executrix of the Estate of Isabel Shick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Greenspoon MARDER, LLP; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-03522-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the proposed Class for settlement purposes; "All New Jersey Consumers who were sent initial letters and/notices, attempting to collect a debt, between April 1, 2019 and April 1, 2020, by Greenspoon which were addressed to the ESTATE OF XXXXXXX and stated in part "This firm, the debt collector, may continue with collection activities and communications in its effort to collect the debt during the 30-day debt validation period, unless you exercise your validation rights described in this Letter. One potential way to attempt to collect the debt is by commencing a lawsuit against you."" 2. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement; 3. directing notice to the Class; and 4. setting dates for opt-outs, objections, and a hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). -- Relief to Plaintiff and the Settlement Class (a) Greenspoon will create a class settlement fund of $7,875.00 ("Class Recovery"), which the Class Administrator will distribute to those Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves, a check in the amount of $125.00. Checks issued to Class Members will be void sixty (60) days from the date of issuance. If any portion of the Settlement Class Recovery remains after the void date on the Members' checks, these remaining funds will be distributed as set forth in 10(d). (b) Greenspoon shall pay $1,000 to the named Plaintiff for her statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a)(2)(B)(i), plus an additional $500 in recognition of her service to the Settlement Class. Therefore, the named Plaintiff will receive $1,500; (c) Greenspoon shall pay all costs associated with providing notice to the Settlement Class under this class settlement and all costs of administering the class settlement; (d) Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date, along with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery, will be donated as a cy pres award to a charitable organization. The Parties propose that the cy pres award be donated to the National Consumer Law Center. The Parties' selection of the forgoing cy pres recipient is subject to the Court's approval at the time of the final fairness hearing. (e) Subject to the Court's approval, Greenspoon agrees to pay Class Counsel $30,000.00 as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of a "successful action" under 15 U.S.C. section 1692k. The award of fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel shall be in addition to, and shall not in any way reduce, the amounts to be provided to the Settlement Class Members. This action was brought by the Plaintiff on her own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserted a claim pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against the Defendants in connection with collection letters Siegel sent to the Plaintiff concerning a debt allegedly owed to Liberty Home Equity Solutions, Inc., which the Plaintiff alleges violated 15 U.S.C. section 1692 et seq. The Defendants deny all of these factual allegations. A copy of the the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fSkJCZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 The Defendant is represented by: James Valvano, Esq. Greenspoon MARDER LLP Matthew Rapkowski, Associate 590 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10022 GRIFFIN ORGANICS: Court Approves Settlement in Artiega Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Mauricio E. Zavala Artiega, Plaintiff v. Griffin Organics, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 6613 (AEK) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approves the parties' application for approval of a settlement agreement in accordance with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Plaintiff Zavala Artiega commenced the action on Aug. 22, 2016, asserting claims against Defendants Griffin Organics, Inc., Griffin's Landscaping Corp., Hilltop Nursery and Garden Center, Inc., and Glen Griffin for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") based on the alleged failure to pay overtime wages and provide proper wage and hour notices and wage statements. Before the Court is the parties' application for approval of a settlement agreement in accordance with Cheeks. The settlement terms for which the parties seek approval are embodied in a Term Sheet, which was agreed to by the parties in connection with a private mediation. Most of the provisions in the Term Sheet are not being presented to this Court for review or approval as part of the Cheeks Application. Indeed, nearly the entire Term Sheet addresses a contemplated "Class Settlement," which purportedly would serve as a resolution of a yet-to-be-filed action in New York State court. This unusual bifurcated approach to claims was the product of a negotiated resolution by the parties in private mediation, and disputes about the meaning and enforceability of that Term Sheet have consumed considerable time and attention as part of this matter. But at status conferences before the Court on Dec. 11, 2020 and Jan. 5, 2021, as well as in the Cheeks Application, the parties have made clear that the request for settlement approval is narrow: The only issue being presented for review is the settlement of the FLSA claim of individual Plaintiff Zavala Artiega, and the only claims that would be fully released as part of this proposed settlement are Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims. The Term Sheet includes only one term, the "Individual Settlement," specifically devoted to the settlement of Zavala Artiega's individual FLSA claims. That term states: "The parties agree that for the case under 16-cv-6613, filed in the Southern District of New York, only the federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement for Mauricio Zavala's federal claims, inclusive of legal fees, will be $15,000 paid by Defendants, jointly and severally. The parties agree that Plaintiff will have the option of transferring the case to the magistrate judge, to which Defendants will agree. Payment of the Individual Settlement Amount will be paid to the escrow of the Administrator (Arden Claims Service) by July 1, 2017." Only the "Individual Settlement" requires the Court's approval and is the subject of the Cheeks Application. Although not included in the "Individual Settlement" provision, the parties have allocated one-third of the total settlement payment to attorneys' fees and costs, which is consistent with the separate "Attorneys' Fees" provision in the Term Sheet related to the settlement of the future state court class action. The parties have thus proposed that Zavala Artiega's counsel be paid $5,000 of the total $15,000 for attorneys' fees and costs. Having reviewed the parties' submissions in support of the proposed settlement, factored in his understanding that the parties engaged in an extended mediation and arbitration process through which they agreed to resolve the case, and considered the totality of the circumstances, Judge Krause finds that the parties' proposed settlement of Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims is fair and reasonable. His consideration is limited only to Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims, and he makes no findings whatsoever regarding those aspects of the Term Sheet that pertain to any other potential claims involving Zavala Artiega or any other parties. With respect to the "Individual Settlement" of Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims, all five Wolinsky factors weigh in favor of approval. First, the settlement agreement provides for a total settlement payment of $15,000, with $10,000 payable to Zavala Artiega and $5,000 payable to his counsel as attorneys' fees and costs. According to Zavala Artiega's calculations, his best possible recovery on his claims for overtime wages under the FLSA would be $36,109. Second, the settlement will enable the parties to avoid significant additional expenses and burdens associated with establishing their claims and defenses. Third, the parties would have faced significant litigation risks if the case had proceeded to trial. Fourth, given the mediation process in which the parties engaged, with each side represented by competent wage and hour counsel, there is no question that the proposed settlement, as set forth in the Term Sheet, is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel. Fifth, the Judge has no reason to believe that the proposed settlement is the product of fraud or collusion. Under the particular circumstances of the case, Judge Krause holds that there is no question that in matters immediately before him alone, the Plaintiff's counsel has expended time and effort that would lead to attorneys' fees well in excess of the $5,000 in fees that are proposed as part of this settlement, and it is clear that the fee award represents a small fraction of the lodestar figure that counsel would submit. Accordingly, the fee award -- which represents one-third of the total settlement amount -- is fair and reasonable. For these reasons, Judge Krause concludes the proposed settlement to be fair and reasonable, and the individual settlement of Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims, as set forth in the Term Sheet, is approved. Zavala Artiega's counsel will receive $5,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. Zavala Artiega will receive the balance of the settlement payment, $10,000. The Judge directs the parties to submit a stipulation, dismissing with prejudice Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims, on May 26, 2021, at which point the case can be closed. Because the action was never certified as a collective or class action, and because Zavala Artiega settled the case individually, the Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the case caption as follows: Mauricio E. Zavala Artiega, Plaintiff, -against- Griffin Organics, Inc., et al., Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3tv7hwm from Leagle.com. GSE SYSTEMS: $15K Remains to be Paid in Joyce Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- GSE Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that as of March 31, 2021, approximately $15 thousand of the outstanding liability in the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., remains to be paid. On March 29, 2019, a former employee of Absolute Consulting, Inc., filed a putative class action against Absolute and the Company, Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., case number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleged that the plaintiff and certain other employees were not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The Company was subsequently dismissed from the case, leaving Absolute as the sole defendant. On August 17, 2020, Absolute entered into a Settlement Agreement with the plaintiffs, with a maximum settlement amount of $1.5 million, which required Court approval. On September 8, 2020, the Settlement Agreement between Absolute and the plaintiffs was ratified by the Court, and the case was dismissed, although the parties remain bound by the terms of the settlement agreement. Following Court approval, Absolute made an initial payment toward the settlement amount, including legal fees, of $625 thousand. After the passing of an opt-in notice period expired, the final cost of settling this case, including plaintiff's attorney fees was approximately $1.4 million. GSE Systems said, "As of March 31, 2021, approximately $15 thousand of the outstanding liability remains to be paid and we are expecting this to occur as payment information is confirmed with the plaintiff's attorneys over the next few quarters." GSE Systems, Inc. provides simulation, training, and engineering solutions to the power and process industries in the United States, Asia, Europe, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Performance Improvement Solutions and Nuclear Industry Training and Consulting. GSE Systems, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Sykesville, Maryland. HONEY BLOSSOM: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honey Blossom LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Honey Blossom LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04754 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Honey Blossom -- https://thehoneyblossom.com/ -- is an Online Boutique Specializing in All Natural Healthy Products for your Everyday Healthy Lifestyle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL THRONDSON v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 2:19-cv-01789-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order that: -- Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than June 11, 2021. The the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by October 1, 2021. -- The Plaintiff's expert report relating to the class, if any, must be produced by July 21, 2021. -- Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by August 23, 2021. Should a class be certified, the Court will establish separate case deadlines for expert reports relating to merits issues. -- All class discovery shall be completed by July 14, 2021. For purposes of complying with this Order, the parties must schedule their discovery in such a way as to require all responses to be served prior to the deadline and must also file any motions relating to discovery within the discovery period. Should a class be certified, the Court will establish separate case deadlines for completion of merits discovery. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by October 1, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RIvVtU at no extra charge.[CC] IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid to Nix NY Putative Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss filed in the consoldated putative class action suit, is pending. On April 20, 2020, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and others in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking damages of an unspecified amount for alleged false and misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt that were held in escrow to make interest payments in the event of a default thereof. On May 5, 2020, another shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action against the same defendants alleging substantially similar causes of action. On June 16, 2020, four separate motions for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel were filed. On July 9, 2020, the court issued an order consolidating the various class actions complaints along with U.S. Hi-Med LLC matter and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 23, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. On October 14, 2020, the court issued a stipulation and scheduling and coordination order, which requires that the defendants answer, move, or otherwise respond to the amended complaints no later than November 20, 2020. On November 20, 2020, the Company and its current Chief Financial Officer filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On January 8, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company and its Chief Financial Officer's reply to the opposition was filed on February 22, 2021. The motion to dismiss remains pending before the court. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. owns and operates licensed cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities throughout the United States, providing investors diversified exposure to the U.S. regulated cannabis industry. The company is based in New York, New York. IANTHUS CAPITAL: TCPA Related Class Suit vs. IEH Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) related class action suit initiated against iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC (IEH), has been voluntarily dismissed. On January 13, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC (IEH) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) relating to IEH's alleged text message marketing. On February 1, 2021, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice, dismissing all claims of the named, individual plaintiff and the unnamed members of the alleged class. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. owns and operates licensed cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities throughout the United States, providing investors diversified exposure to the U.S. regulated cannabis industry. IDEANOMICS INC: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ideanomics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated purported securities class action suit entitled ,In re Ideanomics, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending. On June 28, 2020, a purported securities class action, captioned Lundy v. Ideanomics et al. Inc., was filed in the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain current officers and directors of the Company. Additionally, on July 7, 2020, a purported securities class action captioned Kim v. Ideanomics, et al, was filed in the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain current officers and directors of the Company. Both cases alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from certain purported misstatements by the Company beginning in March 2020 regarding its MEG division. On November 4, 2020, the Lundy and Kim actions were consolidated and is now titled In re Ideanomics, Inc. Securities Litigation. In December 2020, the Court appointed Rene Aghajanian as lead plaintiff and an amended complaint was filed in February 2021, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from certain purported misstatements by the Company beginning in March 2020 regarding its MEG division. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2021. Ideanomics, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Nevada on October 19, 2004. From 2010 through 2017, the Company's primary business activities were providing premium content video on demand (VOD) services, with primary operations in the People's Republic of China (PRC,) through its subsidiaries and variable interest entities (VIEs) under the brand name You-on-Demand (YOD). The Company closed the YOD business during 2019. The company is based in New York, New York. IDEANOMICS INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Rudani Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ideanomics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a settlement in principle has been reached in Rudani v. Ideanomics, et al. Inc., finalizing a settlement agreement and approval of the Court, for $5,000,000. On July 19, 2019, a purported class action, now captioned Rudani v. Ideanomics, et al. Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, the Amended Complaint alleges purported misstatements made by the Company in 2017 and 2018. As previously disclosed, there was a mediation scheduled for April 21 and 22, 2021 for the above-referenced filed civil actions. In the Rudani action, the parties reached a settlement in principle, subject to finalizing a settlement agreement and approval of the Court, for $5,000,000. Ideanomics, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Nevada on October 19, 2004. From 2010 through 2017, the Company's primary business activities were providing premium content video on demand (VOD) services, with primary operations in the People's Republic of China (PRC,) through its subsidiaries and variable interest entities (VIEs) under the brand name You-on-Demand (YOD). The Company closed the YOD business during 2019. The company is based in New York, New York. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Odeh Must File Class Status Bid by August 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMAD ODEH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. IMMUNOMEDICS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-17645-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order that: 1. The request for an extension of certain class certification- related deadlines is granted. 2. The Defendants' class certification-related expert report shall be served by June 25, 2021. 3. The Plaintiffs' class certification-related reply expert report shall be served by July 23, 2021. 4. Depositions of all class certification-related experts shall be completed by August 25, 2021. 5. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by August 25, 2021. 6. The Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by September 29, 2021. 7. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of class certification by October 20, 2021. Immunomedics develops, manufactures, and sells diagnostic imaging and therapeutic products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bYvgv3 at no extra charge.[CC] INFINITY INSURANCE: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stephanie Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Infinity Insurance Company, an Indiana Corporation, Kemper Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 21STCV13824 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 27, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-04441 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Infinity Insurance -- https://www.infinityauto.com/ -- is a national insurance provider.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Teresa C. Chow, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com INFORMATION RESOURCES: Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krystal Santiago, et al. v. Information Resources Inc. (IRI) and Jeff Neuman, Case No. 1:20-cv-07688-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time and modifying the briefing schedule set for Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. Deadline Original Date New Date Defendants' Opposition to May 24, 2021 June 1, 2021 Plaintiffs' Motion Plaintiffs' Reply Papers June 7, 2021 June 15, 2021 The Defendants say that their counsel need additional time to confer with their clients about Plaintiffs’ allegations and evidence and collect relevant data and documents, which has been delayed due to recent family medical issues. The Plaintiffs take no position on Defendants' extension request. Granting these extensions will not impact any other deadlines in the case, the Defendants add. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SHdXI1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 545-4000 Facsimile: (212) 972-3213 E-mail: jacksonlewis.com INNOVATIVE GARDENING: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innovative Gardening Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Innovative Gardening Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03000 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Innovative Gardening Solutions, which also operates under the name Gardener's Supply -- https://www.gardeners.com/ -- is America's number one resource for gardening.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Wages Class Certified in Myers FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA MYERS, BARBARA STANERSON, JOHN EIVINS, LIV KELLY-SELLNAU, CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, and SHUNA TOSA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00081-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephanie M. Rose entered an order: 1. certifying the following "Wages Class," represented by Plaintiffs Myers, Stanerson, Eivins, Kelly-Sellnau, Taylor, and Tosa, defined as follows: "All individuals who have worked for UIHC since August 19, 2017 as members of the SEIU bargaining unit ("health care professional bargaining unit") or October 7, 2017 as a 'Merit, Merit Exempt, and Non-Exempt P&S' employee ("blue collar workers"), respectively, who have not received their earned wages until more than twelve days, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, after the end of the period in which the wages were earned;" 2. limiting the "Termination Class," represented by Plaintiff Kelly-Sellnau, to: "All individual members of the SEIU bargaining unit ("health care professional bargaining unit") or "Merit, Merit Exempt, and Non-Exempt P&S" employees ("blue collar workers") who have worked for UIHC since October 7, 2017 and have since terminated their employment who have not been paid accrued vacation pay, or unused accumulated sick leave not to exceed $2,000 where the employee retired at age 55 or older, by the next regular payday after their employment was terminated;" 3. appointing Attorneys Harold L. Lichten, Benjamin J. Weber, and Nathan T. Willems as class counsel. The Court said, "The last dispute between the parties regarding the inclusion of unpaid sick leave plaintiffs is the class representative. The class representative identified by Plaintiffs is Kelly-Sellnau. A class representative must be a member of the putative class and have standing to bring the claim. Similar to the requirements of Rule 23 as to commonality and typicality, the Rule requires that a class representative have "claims or defenses" that are "typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The class representative’s claims need not be identical. The Plaintiff Kelly-Sellnau’s claim for untimely payment of wages following termination of employment is "typical" of claims for unpaid sick leave upon retirement and he is properly a member of the Termination Class. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff Kelly-Sellnau may properly be the class representative for the Termination Class." The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC), a medical facility operated and managed by Defendant Iowa Board of Regents. The Plaintiffs allege claims for untimely payment of wages violating both state and federal law. The Amended Complaint contains three counts: Count I alleges Defendant failed to pay earned wages in a timely manner. Count II allege the Defendant failed to pay accrued vacation or qualifying sick leave pay on the next regular payday after termination of employment. And Count III alleges Defendant failed to pay overtime premium pay on the next regular payday. Counts I and II are brought pursuant to the IWPCL and Count III is pursuant to the FLSA. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fvt1Sc at no extra charge.[CC] J-M MANUFACTURING: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcelino Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. which will do business in California as J-M Pipe Manufacturing Company, a California Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004926 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 27, 2021). The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. also known as JM Eagle -- https://www.jmeagle.com/ -- is an American corporation and a manufacturer of plastic pipe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com J.T. PIERCE PLUMBING: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.R. Pierce Plumbing Co., Inc. of Sacramento, et al. The case is styled as Hector Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. J.R. Pierce Plumbing Co., Inc. of Sacramento, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00300960-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 17, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited". J. R. Pierce Plumbing -- https://www.onlinejrp.com/ -- provides project engineering, plumbing design, commercial and residential plumbing services to the construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY 16133 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 818-990-8300 Fax: 818-990-2903 Email: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com JACOB KOSTECKI: Gentry Must File Bid for Class Cert. by July 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gentry v. Kostecki, Case No. 1:20-cv-01284 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of deadlines. Judge Martinez says that on or before July 19, 2021, the Plaintiff shall do one of the following: (1) file a renewed motion for class certification consistent with this Order (or a motion for an extension of time in which to do so) or (2) file a motion for default judgment on behalf of the named Plaintiff only. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] JAGUAR HEALTH: Final Approval of Plant Settlement Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company awaits final approval of settlement in Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al. suit. On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-04102, by Tony Plant on behalf of shareholders of the Company who held shares on April 12, 2017 and were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting, against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as of the date of the vote, in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al. (Jaguar Health, Inc. was formerly known as Jaguar Animal Health, Inc.), making claims arising under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S-4 declared effective by the Commission on July 6, 2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto. The Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf of itself and the United States-based director Defendants on November 1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director Defendants. By order dated September 20, 2018, the court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was entitled to amend that complaint within 20 days from the date of dismissal. On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to focus on the Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia and the related disclosure statements in the Form S-4. On November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 28, 2019. The Company answered the second amended complaint on August 2, 2019; the answer denied the material allegations of the second amended complaint. Following the completion of document discovery, the parties engaged in a mediation that resulted in an agreement in principle to settle the litigation on a class-wide basis for $2.6 million, subject to court approval. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on December 30, 2020. The court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, and authorized Plaintiff to provide settlement class members with notice of the proposed settlement, in an order dated February 2, 2021. The final settlement approval hearing is currently scheduled for May 27, 2021. Jaguar said, "Assuming that the court gives final approval to the proposed settlement following the final settlement approval hearing, the entire settlement consideration will be provided by the Company's director and officer liability insurance carrier." Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial-stage natural-products pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California. JAMES DOLAN: Hollywood Firefighters Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against James L. Dolan, et al. The case is styled as Hollywood Firefighters Pension Fund, James R. Gould Jr. v. James L. Dolan, Brian G. Sweeney, Charles F. Dolan, Charles P. Dolan, Frederic V. Salerno, Isiah L. Thomas III, John L. Sykes, Joseph J. Lhota, Kristin A. Dolan, Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., Marianne Dolan Webber, Martin Bandier, Matthew C. Blank, MSG Networks, Inc., Paul J. Dolan, Quentin F. Dolan, Ryan T. Dolan, Thomas C. Dolan, Vincent Tese, Defendants; Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., Nominal Defendant; Case No. 2021-0468-KSJM (Del. Chancery Ct., May 27, 2021). The case type is stated as "Injunctive Relief." James Lawrence Dolan -- https://www.msgsports.com/leadership/james-l-dolan/ -- is an American businessman who serves as executive chairman and CEO of Madison Square Garden Sports and Madison Square Garden Entertainment and executive chairman of MSG Networks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP-Wilmington 500 Delaware Ave Ste 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 364-3600 Email: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Brooks Says Collection Letter "Deceptive" ------------------------------------------------------------ THELMA BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-11772-JMV-CLW (D.N.J., May 26, 2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt that was incurred to non-party Fingerhut Advantage specifically for personal purchases using a Fingerhut credit account. Purportedly, Fingerhut has sold or assigned the alleged debt to the Defendant. Subsequently on or about January 21, 2020, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff stating $758.74 Total Due, which amount is allegedly false, deceptive, misleading, and unfair because the accrue interest was not stated. New Jersey judgments automatically accrue interest pursuant to various New Jersey laws, inter alia New Jersey Court Rule 4:42-11(a), the suit says. Because the Plaintiff was confused as to the debt and the amount involved here and how it implicates her alleged responsibilities for making payment thereon, the Plaintiff expended time, money, and effort in determining the proper course of action. The Plaintiff has also suffered emotional harm as a result of the Defendant's unlawful collection practices, added the suit. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliyahu Babad, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 121 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com JENNY JN: Seeks June 18 Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hsin Huang Chang, v. Jenny Jn Nails, Inc., Burtis Nail Inc., Jenny GJ Inc., Dae Eun Lee, Case No. 3:19-cv-02024-AVC (D. Conn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending 30 days from May 19, 2021 to June 18, 2021 for them to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class filed on December 7, 2020 and Motion to Compel filed on December 7, 2020. A copy of the Court's order the Defendants' motion dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wHdlkA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW NY: 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718)762-1324 E-mail TROYLAW@TROYPLLC.COM The Defendants are represented by: William X Zou, Esq. BILL ZOU & ASSOCIATES PLLC By: William X. Zou, Esq. 136-20 38 th Avenue, Suite 10D Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 661-9562 JOHN WETZEL: Must File Response to Brown Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROWN v. WETZEL et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00512 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order directing the Defendants to file a response to the motion to certify class filed by the Plaintiff. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus Prison involving Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Junks Baltas Class Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE BALTAS, On his on behalf and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, et al., the Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs entered an order dismissing the suit without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All motions shall be terminated as moot and no filing fee is assessed. Moreover, the Court does not have diversity subject matter jurisdiction over this action if it were to treat the lawsuit as a potential class action. Even if the Court were to assume that each class member was entitled to $750 in damages for purchasing a $139 computer tablet with eleven percent less storage than advertised, the class would have to have at least 6,667 members to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy. KCN provides automated commissary management services and technologies. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RPGLOw at no extra charge.[CC] KNIGHT TRANS: LaCross Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira, and Matthew Lofton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Knight Transportation Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00990-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class of truck drivers who: "(1) signed 11 materially identical contracts with Knight during the relevant time period, (2) were 12 subject to uniform policies, rules and regulations, (3) were hired to perform the same job 13 duties; (4) were all allegedly uniformly misclassified as independent contractors, and (5) all of whom opted out of a prior settlement in Flores v. Knight Transportation Inc., et al., Case No. CV-15-01817-PHX- SRB. The proposed class includes 183 drivers, all of whom are individually represented by Plaintiffs' counsel here;" 2. appointing class counsel; and 3. confirming the Plaintiffs as class representatives, thus avoiding the time, cost and burden of maintaining separate actions and/or joinders for each of the 183 similarly- situated and individually-represented drivers seeking to assert claims against Knight for its allegedly illegal labor and employment practices. The Plaintiffs are former "owner-operator" truck drivers for defendant Knight. Under Knight's business-model, the Plaintiffs and putative class members leased trucks from Knight and were required to follow Knight's strict policies and procedures, but were nevertheless classified by Knight as independent contractors. This lawsuit seeks to determine whether Knight misclassified its California-based owner-operator drivers as independent contractors in violation of California' labor and employment laws. Knight Transportation "provides truckload transportation and logistics services". The Defendant Knight Sales is a wholly owned subsidiary of Knight, and is as the entity through which it leases its trucks to its drivers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TmKALH at no extra charge.[CC] The attorney for the Plaintiffs Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira, and Matthew Lofton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are: The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Karen I. Gold, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com kgold@marlinsaltzman.com - and - James M. Trush, Esq. TRUSH LAW OFFICE, APC 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B204 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 384-6390 Facsimile: (714) 384-6391 E-mail: jim@trushlaw.com - and - Ellen R Serbin, Esq. Todd H. Harrison, Esq. Brennan S. Kahn, Esq. PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN MENDOZA, APC 300 East San Antonio Drive Long Beach, CA 90807 Telephone: (562) 426-6155 Facsimile: (562) 490-9823 E-mail: toddharrison@plblaw.com brennankahn@plblaw.com ellen@plblaw.com KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Seeks to Certify Class of ESOP Participants ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE GAMINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KPC HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, and KPC HEALTHCARE, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01126-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on July 30, 2021 to enter an order certifying the following class under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Counts I-V and VII-VIII of the Plaintiff's Complaint: "All participants in the KPC Healthcare, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan from August 28, 2015 or any time thereafter (unless they terminated employment without vesting in the ESOP) and those participants' beneficiaries." Excluded from the Class are (a) Defendants, (b) any fiduciary of the Plan; (c) the officers and directors of KPC Healthcare Holdings, Inc. or of any entity in which one of the individual Defendants has a controlling interest; (d) the immediate family members of any of the foregoing excluded persons, and (e) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. KPC Healthcare is a medical practice company based out of 1301 N TUSTIN AVE, Santa Ana, California. A copy of the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wDRjis at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. Colin M. Downes BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 1735 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jbarton@blockleviton.com colin@blockleviton.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Darin Ranahan, Esq. FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com darin@feinbergjackson.com - and - Richard E. Donahoo, Esq. Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq. William E. Donahoo, Esq. DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC. 440 W. First Street, Suite 101. Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 953-1010 E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com skokonas@donahoo.com wdonahoo@donahoo.com - and - Major Khan, Esq. MKLLC LAW 1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Fl. New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (646) 546-5664 E-mail: mk@mk-llc.com LIBRARY SYSTEMS: Settlement Deal in Khaled Suit Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elizabeth Khaled v. Library Systems and Services, LLC, Case No. EDCV 19-1478 JGB (Kkx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order that: 1. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as potentially fair, reasonable, and adequate. However, in her motion for final approval. 2. The following Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only: "All persons employed by Defendant in California as non- exempt employees at any time during the Settlement Class Period who do not Opt-Out of the settlement." 3. The Court appoints David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group to serve as counsel on behalf of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. 4. The Plaintiff Elizabeth Khaled is appointed as the representative of the Settlement Class for purposes of settlement only. 5. The Court appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator. 6. The Class Notice forms are approved. 7. The Court authorizes distribution of Class Notice to the Settlement Class members pursuant to the Agreement. 8. The hearing date for the Final Fairness Hearing is hereby set for Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division located at 3470 12th Street, Riverside, California 92501. Library Systems is a private for-profit company that manages municipal libraries on an outsourced basis. It is the largest library outsourcing company in the United States. It runs 20 library systems in 80 locations. On August 8, 2019, the Plaintiff commenced this action in the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside against the Defendants Library Systems & Services, LLC and Does 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code by failing to provide rest breaks and meal periods, and to pay employees all wages for all hours worked at correct rates of pay. A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2R0SlWR at no extra charge.[CC] LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Initial Certification of Settlement Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Perchlak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Liddle & Liddle, A Professional Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-09461-JFW-AFM (C.D. Calif.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily certifying a class of individuals for settlement purposes: "All natural persons with a California address to whom Defendant sent a letter based on the Template in connection with the collection of a consumer debt on or after November 3, 2018 through November 3, 2019;" 2. preliminarily approving the Agreement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff as the named- representative of the class; 4. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Class; 5. approving the form of the proposed class notice; and 6. setting a final fairness hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Defendant is a law firm that represents landlords in residential evictions, including through sending three day notices to pay rent or quit. Here, Defendant sent on such notice to Plaintiff on August 7, 2019 (the "Three Day Notice"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(2) because the Three Day Notice failed to effectively convey the name of the creditor to whom the alleged debt was owed, and the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with the same in writing within five days thereafter. The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant violated U.S.C. section 1692g(b) because the Three Day Notice overshadowed the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a), including by threatening to take legal action against the Plaintiff within the 30-day dispute period without a clear explanation of how such threat comported with Plaintiff's validation rights. A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yQB2sn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2 No. 492 Scottsdale, AZ 85259 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com The Defendant is represented by: James D. Hepworth, Esq. NEMECEK & COLE 16255 Ventura Blvd, 300 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 788-9500 Facsimile: (818) 501-0328 E-mail: jhepworth@nemecek-cole.com LIFE INSURANCE: Class Certification Sought in PFA Marketing Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE PFA INSURANCE MARKETING LITIGATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-03771-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 24, 2021 to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons who enrolled as Premier Financial Alliance members and purchased one or more Living Life Indexed Universal Life Insurance policies in California or New Jersey between January 1, 2014, and the present." Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendants Life Insurance Company of the Southwest ("LSW") and Premier Financial Alliance ("PFA"), their parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, employees, any entity in which one of these Defendants has a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in one of these Defendants, and relevant nonparties National Life Insurance Company, NLV Financial Corporation, Mehran Assadi, David Carroll, Jack Wu, Aggie Wu, Rex Wu, Hermie Bacus, Bill Hong, and Lan Zhang. Also excluded from the class are the agents, legal representatives, successors, assigns, and immediate family members of Defendants and these relevant nonparties; all individuals who reached the level of Provisional Field Director, Qualified Field Director, Senior Field Director, Regional Field Director, Area Field Director, National Field Director, Executive Field Director or Senior Executive Field Director at PFA; and the judicial officers to whom this matter is assigned and their immediate family members and staff; 2. appointing them as class representatives; and 3. appointing the law firm of Girard Sharp LLP as class counsel. LSW offers mutual fund and life insurance solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vvmZ9z at no extra charge.[CC] The Interim Class Counsel are: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.coms LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Ryan Putative Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Lightning eMotors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class action suit entitled, Ryan v. GigCapital3, Inc., et al., has been dismissed. On February 8, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, captioned Ryan v. GigCapital3, Inc., et al. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00969) on behalf of a purported class of stockholders. The lawsuit names the Company and Dr. Avi Katz, Dr. Raluca Dinu, and Messrs. Andrea Betti-Berutto, John Mikulsky, Neil Miotto and Peter Wang, as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by approving the dissemination of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-4 relating to the business combination with Lightning, which the complaint contends, among other things, failed to provide critical information regarding the financial projections of the Company. The lawsuit also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because they had the power to influence and control, and did influence and control the decision-making of the Company including the dissemination of the Company's Registration Statement. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the business combination or recission of the business combination. The lawsuit also purports to seek a declaration that defendants Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. The lawsuit was dismissed by the plaintiff on April 21, 2021. Lightning eMotors, Inc. is a newly organized Private-to-Public Equity (PPE) company, also known as a blank check company or special purpose acquisition vehicle, incorporated in the State of Delaware and formed for the purpose of acquiring, engaging in a share exchange, share reconstruction and amalgamation with, purchasing all or substantially all of the assets of, or engaging in any other similar business combination with one or more businesses or entities. The company is based in Loveland, Colorado. LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Shingote Putative Class Suit Junked ------------------------------------------------------ Lightning eMotors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class action suit entitled, Shingote v. GigCapital3, Inc., et al. (Case No. 650109-2021), has been dismissed. On January 7, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, captioned Shingote v. GigCapital3, Inc., et al. (Case No. 650109-2021) on behalf of a purported class of stockholders. The lawsuit names the Company and each of its current directors, Dr. Avi Katz, Neil Miotto, John Mikulsky, Dr. Raluca Dinu, Andrea Betti-Berutto, and Peter Wang, as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of the Company and failing to disclose all material information necessary for the stockholders to make an informed decision on whether to vote their shares in favor of the business combination with Lightning. The lawsuit also alleges that the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the business combination or recission of the business combination and an order directing the defendants to amend the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-4. The lawsuit also purports to seek a declaration that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties, damages, and recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. The lawsuit was dismissed by the plaintiff on April 20, 2021. Lightning eMotors, Inc. is a newly organized Private-to-Public Equity (PPE) company, also known as a blank check company or special purpose acquisition vehicle, incorporated in the State of Delaware and formed for the purpose of acquiring, engaging in a share exchange, share reconstruction and amalgamation with, purchasing all or substantially all of the assets of, or engaging in any other similar business combination with one or more businesses or entities. The company is based in Loveland, Colorado. LIN'S GARDEN: Hong Seeks to Certify Non-Managerial Employee Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. LIN'S GARDEN RESTAURANT INC. d/b/d Lin's Asian Cuisine; and NEW DYNASTY CHINESE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a Dynasty; HUAYONG LIN, LIANRONG HUANG, and RU HAI LIN, Case No. e 1:20-cv-02633-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e- mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of: "ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from March 28, 2017 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later"; 3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; 4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; 5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website; 6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the Chinese, Spanish-speaking American immigrant worker community; 7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace; 8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in English, and Chinese, Spanish; and 9. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in Period. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i1s5GJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential Rule 23 Class, are: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 LIN'S GARDEN: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by June 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIN'S GARDEN RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02633-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order in connection to Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification and other forms of relief that: -- the Defendants are directed to file a response by June 1, 2021; and -- Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be due by June 8, 2021. Lin's Garden is a restaurant in Brooklyn, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vCfjTc at no extra charge.[CC] LOBSTER BAR: June 7 Response Time to Conditional Cert. Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NAVAS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. LOBSTER BAR GRILLE, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-60480-JMS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time, through and including June 7, 2021, in which to file its response to Plaintiff's Motion and Incorporated Memorandum For Conditional Certification of Collective Action Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Facilitation of Court-Authorized Opt-in Notice. The Plaintiff, who was formerly employed by Lobster Bar as a Server, filed the action under the FLSA for unpaid wages. Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of herself and others claimed to be similarly situated. Lobster Bar was served with the Summons and Complaint on March 25, 2021, and on April 21, 2021, filed its Answer and Statement of Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint. A copy of Defendant's motion dated May 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vvKsYy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Zascha B. Abbott, Esq. Jonathan A. Beckerman, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2600 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: 954-728-1280 Facsimile: 954-728-1282 E-mail: Zascha.Abbott@lewisbrisbois.com Jonathan.Beckerman@lewisbrisbois.com LOGAN VIEW: Davidson Seeks to Certify FDCPA & CSPA Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIAONNE DAVIDSON, Individually and on behalf of herself and all similarly situated, v. LOGAN VIEW, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01021-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following classes: -- The Fair Debt Collection Practices (FDCPA) class efined as: "all individuals in Ohio to whom Logan View sent a Collection Letter within one year prior to the commencement of this case, where the letter attempted to collect an alleged medical debt;" and -- The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) defined as "all individuals in Ohio to whom Logan View sent a Collection Letter within two years prior to the commencement of this case, where the letter attempted to collect an alleged medical debt, and where the alleged creditor was not an individual physician or dentist." The Plaintiff Davidson brings this case as a class action against Defendant Logan View for violations of the FDCPA and the CSPA. Mrs. Davidson moves for certification of this matter as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(2) and (b)(3), including two classes. Logan View provides medical equipment and related healthcare supplies. The Company offers its products to the healthcare industry in the State of Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2bG6k at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Mrs. Davidson and the classes, are: Gregory S. Reichenbach, Esq. REICHENBACH LAW P.O. Box 711 Perrysburg, OH 43552-0711 Telephone: (419) 529-8300 Facsimile: (419) 529-8310 E-mail: Greg@ReichenbachLaw.com - and - Edward A. Icove, Esq. ICOVE LEGAL GROUP, LTD. Terminal Tower, Ste. 627 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 802-0000 Facsimile (216) 802-0002 E-mail: ed@icovelegal.com - and - Jefferey Stiffler, Esq. THE HECK LAW OFFICES, LTD. One Marion Avenue, Suite 215 Mansfield, OH 44903 Telephone: (419) 524-2700 Facsimile: (419) 524-2710 E-mail: jstiffler@hecklawoffices.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to June 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA ASTORGA, an individual, on behalf of herself and as class representative; HUGO PADILLA, an individual, on behalf of himself and class representative, RYAN MICHAEL DODSON, an individual, and KIYOKO DODSON, an individual, on behalf of themselves and as class representatives, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, an individual; ALL CITY TOW GIRL LLC, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 10, all sued in their individual capacities, Case No. 2:20-cv-09805-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order extending the time by which the Plaintiffs may file an amended motion for class certification from May 17, 2021, to June 1, 2021. The Plaintiffs shall notice the motion so as to provide at least seven weeks notice of the hearing date, so that Defendants shall have at least three weeks to file their opposition which will be due no later than 21 days before the noticed hearing date. Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, is the most populous county in the United States and in the U.S. state of California, with more than ten million inhabitants as of 2018. It is the most populous non–state-level government entity in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fXCalB at no extra charge.[CC] LOUISIANA: June 18 Extension to Respond to Amended Complaint Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOK PLAISANCE, ET AL., v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL., Case No. 3:21-cv-00121-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.), the Defendants, Secretary Ava Dejoie and Louisiana Workforce Commission move for an extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint of 30 days, to June 18, 2021 and an extension of time to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to a date to be set by the Court in connection with a schedule established for the hearing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On April 29, 2021 Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery and Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Pending Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 39) pending the Court's ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss based which is focused on this court's jurisdiction. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p3zdns at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kellen J. Mathews, Esq. William B. Gaudet, Esq. ADAMS AND REESE LLP 450 Laurel St., Suite 1900 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Telephone: (225) 336-5200 Facsimile: (225) 336-5220 E-mail: Billy.Gaudet@arlaw.com Kellen.Mathews@arlaw.com MAJESTIC DUDE: Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Extended to June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HOUSE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. MAJESTIC DUDE RANCH; and ROBERT A. BUCKSBAUM, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-01505-KLM (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an order granting the Second Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Class Certification Deadlines. The discovery deadline for Phase I discovery is extended to June 30, 2021. The deadline for the filing of the Motion for Collective/Class Certification is extended to July 31, 2021. A copy of the Court's minute order dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wAqRpX at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2543: Ruling on Attys.' Fees & Costs in GM Switch Suit Issued ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION, Case Nos. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order relating to the allocation of economic loss counsel's fees and expenses. In February 2014, General Motors LLC ("New GM") announced the recall of certain General Motors vehicles that had been manufactured with a defective ignition switch that moved too easily from the "run" position to the "accessory" and "off" positions, causing moving stalls and disabling critical safety systems. In the months that followed, New GM recalled millions of other vehicles, some for reasons relating to the ignition switch and some for other reasons. Not surprisingly, litigation followed, in both state and federal courts. The federal cases were ultimately consolidated in the Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In December 2020, the Court granted final approval to the class action settlement of economic loss claims in the long-running multidistrict litigation ("MDL") arising out of defects in, and the recall of, millions of General Motors vehicles. The Court also awarded the Plaintiffs' counsel more than $24 million in attorneys' fees and nearly $10 million for expenses, but deferred the question of how to allocate these funds among the many law firms involved in litigating the class members' claims pending a proposal from the Class Counsel. Now pending is the Class Counsel's request for approval of a proposed allocation that assigns the 53 relevant law firms to one of three tiers and awards the firms in each tier a specified percentage of its "lodestar." The Class Counsel proposes a tiered structure for allocating the $24.6 million in attorney's fees, pursuant to which each firm would be reimbursed a specified percentage of its "adjusted reported lodestar" depending on the tier. The two Co-Lead Counsel firms would make up "Tier 1"; "Tier 2" would consist of the members of the Executive Committee, Liaison Counsel, and Bankruptcy Counsel; and all remaining Participating Counsel would constitute "Tier 3." Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 firms would collectively be awarded $15,410,185.92, $8,920,490.47, and $254,595.67, respectively, and, subject to one exception, each Tier 1 firm would receive approximately 35% of its relevant lodestar; each Tier 2 firm would receive approximately 19.3%; and each Tier 3 firm would receive the greater of $1,000 or approximately 7.85% of its relevant lodestar. The one exception is Brown Rudnick, which would receive 23.362% of relevant lodestar, despite being a Tier 2 firm, given its "contribution, (as reflected in its lodestar, which is substantially higher than other firms in its tier) as lead bankruptcy counsel, and given the intensive proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court." The proposed allocation of the $9.9 million in costs and expenses is more straightforward: Participating Counsel would "receive most of their unreimbursed costs back, and each firm will be reimbursed the same pro rata share of expenses." In total, the Class Counsel propose to allocate the fee award among 53 firms and the costs and expenses award among 43 firms. Notably, of the 53 law firms that would receive fees or costs under the Class Counsel's proposed allocation, only three object. The three firms that filed objections to the Class Counsel's proposed allocation by the March 12, 2021 deadline: (1) Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP; (2) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP; and the "Peller Group" (defined as "counsel who worked in conjunction with Gary Peller, who coordinated their work and reviewed and submitted hours on their behalf"). All three objectors are categorized as Tier 3 firms under Class Counsel's proposal. Under that proposal, Golenbock, Wolf, and the Peller Group would be awarded $10,709.17, $50,087.68, and $26,614.14 in fees, respectively, and $1,146.31, $18,474.39, and $9,327.92 in costs and expenses, respectively. Notably, the Objectors do not take issue with the Class Counsel's proposal to use a tiered approach to allocation of the awards. Instead, they raise three complaints with respect to their fate under the proposed plan. First, the Peller Group contends that "the proposed discount rate of 7.85% applied to the work of non-Lead Counsel in Tier 3 is so steep in comparison to the 35% discount rate of Lead Counsel that it fails to fairly compensate all non-Lead counsel in the proposed tier three and threatens to produce negative incentive consequences for the MDL consolidation process more generally." Second, all three Objectors argue that they were assigned to the wrong tier, in whole or in part. Third, all three Objectors claim that the proposed allocation fails to credit them for many hours of compensable work without adequate explanation. Judge Furman finds that the Objectors' first two objections -- regarding (1) the discount rates for each tier and (2) the Objectors' tier assignments -- are without merit. With respect to the former, the Judge finds that there is no basis to second guess Class Counsel's proposed discount rates. Indeed, the treatment of Tier 3 firms -- to which the Peller Group primarily objects -- is arguably more generous than it needed to be. The 7.85% discount rate is greater than the Tier 3 firms' share of lodestar relative to Lead Counsel (7.1%). And, under the Class Counsel's proposal, all Tier 3 firms would receive a minimum of $1,000. If anything, it is the Peller Group's proposal -- that Tier 3 firms receive 12.5% of lodestar -- that is arbitrary; he himself provides no argument for that number beyond the conclusory statement that it "is a more reasonable discount rate." Given the Class Counsel's superior knowledge, and the corresponding deference owed to its allocation proposal, that is not enough. To the extent that that result leaves the Peller Group (or any other firm) disappointed, that disappointment is more a function of the overall fee award than it is a function of Class Counsel's allocation. Accordingly, the first objection is overruled. Nor is there any basis to second guess the Class Counsel's assignment of the Objectors to Tier 3 rather than Tier 2, Judge Furman opines. The Class counsel reasonably took account of the disparities in the time, effort, and risks incurred by the counsel and of the leadership roles in the MDL. Accordingly, the Judge concludes that the Class Counsel reasonably assigned the Objectors to Tier3. On the present record, however, Judge Furman cannot resolve the Objectors' third set of objections -- that the Class Counsel failed to credit them for all the compensable work they performed. He finds that the Class Counsel does not explain how it arrived at the "adjusted reported lodestar" figures and whether or to what extent these figures differ from the lodestar figures that Participating Counsel submitted to Class Counsel. Nor does the Class Counsel explain the basis for their decision to credit the Objectors for work performed only within particular date ranges. The Judge holds that it does not suffice for the Class Counsel to say, as they do, that none of the Objectors' work is technically compensable under MDL Order No. 13 because it was not authorized, and that their proposal is "made in good faith as a means of avoiding further delay in distributing fees and costs for work done and expenses incurred by all participating counsel long ago." Having proposed an allocation that credits the Objectors for some, but not all, of their work, it is incumbent on the Class Counsel to explain and justify the criteria they used to make these determinations. Accordingly, no later than June 2, 2021, the Class Counsel will file a document, not to exceed fifteen pages, (1) listing the total reported lodestar submitted by each Participating Counsel; (2) listing the "adjusted reported lodestar" the Class Counsel used to calculate the fee awards for each Participating Counsel in the Proposed Fee Allocation; (3) listing the total costs and expenses submitted by each Participating Counsel; (4) listing the total costs and expenses considered by the Class Counsel in calculating each Participating Counsel's "pro rata share of expenses"; and (5) to the extent those figures differ, providing an explanation of the criteria used to determine which hours and expenses were deemed compensable and which hours and expenses were not, with particular reference to the Objectors. To be clear, the Class Counsel need not submit detailed time and billing records. But their submission should provide enough for the Court to exercise its "ultimate power to review applications and allocations and to adjust them where appropriate" and engage in a "reasonable analysis" of the proposed allocations in light the objections that have been raised. The Objectors are granted leave to file responses, not to exceed seven pages each, no later than June 9, 2021. For the reasons he stated, Judge Furman overruled the first two sets of objections from the Objectors, but he reserved judgment on their third set of objections and, by extension, on the Class Counsel's motion for approval of their proposed allocations of fees and costs pending the additional submissions described. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/n464vype from Leagle.com. MICROSOFT CORP: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN VANCE, et al., v. AMAZON.COM INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to complete discovery on class August 30, 2021 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion September 30, 2021 for class certification: Deadline for Amazon.com Inc. November 15, 2021 (Amazon) to respond if Plaintiffs do not submit expert testimony in support of their class certification motion: Deadline for Amazon to respond if December 3, 2021 Plaintiffs do submit expert testimony in support of their class certification motion: Deadline for Plaintiffs to reply if 34 days after Amazon does not submit expert testimony Amazon's response in support of its response: Deadline for Plaintiffs to reply if 51 days after Amazon does submit expert testimony Amazon's response in support of its response: Judge Robart says that the court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall inform the court immediately should Plaintiffs at any time decide not to seek class certification. The dates set in this scheduling order are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the court, not by agreement of the parties. The court will alter these dates only upon good cause shown. The failure to complete discovery within the time allowed will not ordinarily constitute good cause. As required by LCR 37(a), all discovery matters are to be resolved by agreement if possible. In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court "direct[s] that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court" by notifying Ashleigh Drecktrah at (206) 370-8520. Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology company with headquarters in Redmond, Washington. It develops, manufactures, licenses, supports, and sells computer software, consumer electronics, personal computers, and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0CYtW at no extra charge.[CC] MIDLAND CREDIT: Schwebel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Avi Schwebel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:21-cv-04301-VB (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com - and - Dana Brett Briganti, Esq. Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 471-6200 Fax: (212) 935-1166 Email: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com esilverman@hinshawlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Sofer Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sholom Sofer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:21-cv-11666 (D.N.J., May 24, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Wetzler Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rivka Wetzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-02909 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021), is brought for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices. According to the complaint, prior to February 11, 2021, an obligation was allegedly incurred to creditor Synchrony Bank The Synchrony Bank obligation arose out of transactions incurred primarily for personal, family or household purposes, specifically use of a Gap credit card. Synchrony Bank is a "creditor." Synchrony Bank purportedly sold the alleged debt to the Defendant who is collecting the alleged debt. On February 11, 2021, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the alleged debt owed to Synchrony Bank. The letter states a current balance of $1,750.53 and gives three payment options: 1) 10% Off - Pay 1 payment of $1,575.48.; 2) 5% Off - Pay 6 monthly payments of $277.17; 3) Pay $50 per month – Payments as low as $50 per month. The third option provided by Defendant is not adequately explained and results in two different possible interpretations. First, Option 3 might be construed to be an option where a discounted amount is being paid in monthly payments of $50 a month. Second, Option 3 might be construed to be an option where monthly payments of $50 would be made until the debt is paid off. In addition, if Option 3 means that the $50 payment would be made until the debt is fully paid off, the letter is deceptive because it describes all three options as "options designed to save you money." If the debt is being paid in full under Option 3, it is not a discount program and therefore the letter is deceptive. By failing to explain whether Option 3 is a settlement option or a full pay option, the Letter is false, deceptive and misleading. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. MCM is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION: Court Junks Stipulation to Stay Patton Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYANT PATTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. dba TRILLIUM CONSTRUCTION/DRIVERS, a California corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-08580-JFW-MAA (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order denying stipulation to stay action pending resolution of the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, vacate dates in amended scheduling order, and set class certification briefing schedule. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fPmnFh at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Bryant Patton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Tatiana G. Avakian, Esq. ARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Joseph Tojarieh, Esq. TOJARIEH LAW FIRM, PC 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-5533 E-mail: jft@tojariehlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Midwest Construction Services, Inc. dba Trillium Construction/Drivers Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq. Timothy B. Nelson, Esq. Kyle W. Owen, Esq. MEDINA M C KELVEY LLP 925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300 Roseville, CA 95678 Telephone: (916) 960-2211 E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com tim@medinamckelvey.com kyle@medinamckelvey.com MILBERG LLP: District of Arizona Certifies Class in Bobbitt Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Philip Bobbitt, et al., Plaintiffs v. Milberg LLP, et al., Respondents, Case No. CV-09-00629-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz.), Judge Raner C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued an order: (i) granting in part Bobbitt's Motion for Reconsideration of, or, in the Alternative, Vacating of Order Denying Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel; (ii) granting Bobbitt's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel; and (iii) granting in part Intervenor Lance Laber's Reiterated Motion to Intervene or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The class action is based on underlying litigation in Drnek v. Variable Annuity Life Ins., No. CV-010242-TUC-WDB (D. Ariz. May 25, 2001), wherein two investors sued the Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company ("VALIC") on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging that VALIC sold them tax sheltered annuities without warning them the investments were already in tax-sheltered accounts. These annuities made money for VALIC, but the investors paid more for the annuities and incurred unnecessary fees. District Judge William D. Browning certified the class without conducting the analysis required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. When the plaintiffs' attorneys missed the deadline for disclosing expert witnesses, the district court precluded the experts. In August 2005, the district court decertified the class and dismissed the class-action claims because the plaintiffs had no expert witnesses to testify about class-wide causation or damages. The plaintiffs' attorneys did not notify the putative plaintiffs of their failure to meet the deadlines or inform them of the decertification and dismissal order. In 2009, Plaintiffs Philip Bobbitt and John Sampson brought the instant class action suit for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the Drnek litigation attorneys: Milberg LLP, Melvyn Weiss, Michael Spencer, Janine Pollack, Lee Weiss, and Brian Kerr; Uitz & Associates and Ronald Uitz; the Lustigman Firm, Sheldon and Andrew Lustigman. Early in the litigation, the Plaintiffs asked the district court to certify the same class of individuals that had previously been certified in the Drnek litigation. Applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, District Judge Frank R. Zapata found that class litigation would be unmanageable because the district court would need to apply the law of every state in which a putative plaintiff was domiciled. Plaintiffs Bobbitt and Sampson then filed a motion to dismiss the suit with prejudice, stating that the denial of certification made litigation economically impractical. However, they noted that putative Plaintiff Lance Laber would be seeking intervention for the purpose of appealing Judge Zapata's denial of class certification. Judge Zapata granted both the motion to dismiss and Laber's subsequently filed motion to intervene. Following his joinder in the lawsuit, Laber appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had misapplied the Restatement, in that it is Arizona law that governs the claims of all putative Plaintiffs, not the law of each state in which a putative plaintiff is domiciled. So, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying certification and remanded, indicating that it had no opinion as to whether class certification was ultimately appropriate. A week after Judge Zapata reopened the case upon remand, Laber filed a second motion to intervene to serve as class representative. Before Laber's motion could be decided, Milberg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, arguing the Ninth Circuit did not have jurisdiction over Laber's appeal. The Supreme Court stayed the case while it considered a similar issue in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S.Ct. 1702 (2017). In Baker, the Supreme Court ruled that federal appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification when the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice to obtain a final judgment. Id. at 1750-51. In light of Baker, the Supreme Court remanded this case back to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed its class certification decision for lack of jurisdiction. Upon remand, Judge Zapata entered a judgment of dismissal. Thereafter, Bobbitt filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), arguing the court was required to follow the Ninth Circuit's now-vacated remand order addressing the choice-of-law issue. The district court denied the motion ("Rule 60(b) Order"), concluding it did not have to change its class certification denial because the Ninth Circuit ultimately admitted it did not have jurisdiction to overturn that decision. It also concluded it did not need to alter the judgment and reopen the case because Bobbitt had voluntarily dismissed his claims, and the policy favoring finality of judgments weighed against the request for relief. Bobbitt and Laber appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed the Rule 60(b) Order and remanded, holding that the district court had not evaluated the appropriate factors for a Rule 60(b)(6) motion. As part of the remand, the Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to grant the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, vacate the two judgments denying relief and dismissing the case, permit Bobbitt to seek reconsideration of the order denying class certification, and allow Laber to file another motion to intervene. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the district court could reconsider the issue of what law of the case applied. Upon remand, Judge Zapata reopened the case, vacated the judgments pertaining to Bobbitt's voluntary dismissal, and ordered Bobbitt to file a fourth amended complaint. Bobbitt filed (1) the amended complaint, and (2) a motion for reconsideration of the order denying motion for class certification, or, in the alternative, a motion to vacate the class certification denial and to appoint class counsel. Simultaneously, Laber filed a second motion to intervene or, in the alternative, motion for leave to amend complaint. The Defendants were advised that they did not have to answer the fourth amended complaint until these pending motions are resolved. Analysis I. Motion for Reconsideration or Motion to Vacate Class Certification Decision Milberg argues that the second Motion for Reconsideration of Class Certification is untimely because it was filed two months after Judge Zapata vacated the judgments of dismissal and reopened the case. Moreover, Milberg argues Bobbitt should have filed a renewed motion for class certification, rather than a motion for reconsideration. Judge Collins holds that Bobbitt's motion is not timely under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g), because it was filed more than 14 days after the original order (filed in September 2012), the Ninth Circuit's decision (filed on April 14, 2020), and Judge Zapata's order vacating the judgments (filed on April 22, 2020). Regardless, the Judge construes the motion as a timely Rule 60(b) motion for relief from an order. The Judge explains that this rule permits the Court to "relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" that is "based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated," or where "applying it prospectively is no longer equitable." This sort of motion "must be made within a reasonable time" and "no more than a year after the entry" of the order at issue. "Irrespective of the grounds, in the end, whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court." The Judge exercises discretion pursuant to the foregoing authorities and finds the motion timely. Milberg also urges the Court to reassess the factors for class certification. Bobbitt argues that the Court should grant class certification for the reasons stated by the Ninth Circuit. However, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the issue whether certification is appropriate. Thus, the Judge grants Bobbitt's Motion for Reconsideration of the Class Certification Decision in part, vacates the Sept. 18, 2010 Order denying class certification, and reconsiders the Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. II. Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel Bobbitt asks the Court to certify the following group: "All persons who purchased an individual variable deferred annuity contract or who received a certificate to a group variable deferred annuity contract issued by VALIC, or who made an additional investment through such a contract, on or after April 27, 1998 to April 18, 2003 (Class Period) that was used to fund a contributory retirement plan or arrangement qualified for favorable tax treatment pursuant to sections 401, 403, 408, 408A, or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code." Plaintiff Bobbitt asserts that the class definition is identical to the class that was certified in the Drnek litigation. Judge Collins finds that class certification is appropriate, determines Bobbitt is a suitable representative, and appoints Bobbitt's attorneys as the class counsel. The Judge finds that (i) the class was sufficiently numerous; (ii) Bobbitt has met his burden of showing there are common issues shared by the proposed class; (iii) the nature of Bobbitt's claim is the same as the class; (iv) Bobbitt is an adequate and typical representative of the class; (v) Bobbitt's counsel is adequate; (vi) common issues of Milberg's actions, legal theories of recovery, presumed reliance, duty, and breach predominate over the individualized defenses to recovery; (vii) District of Arizona is an appropriate and desirable forum in which litigation should proceed; and (viii) any complexities raised by class litigation are outweighed by the common issues of law and fact. Accordingly, the Motion to Certify Class and Appointment of Class Counsel is granted. III. Lance Laber's Motion to Intervene Mr. Laber asks the Court to allow him to either intervene or to join as an additional plaintiff and permit a fifth amended complaint adding him as a party. Milberg argues that Laber's intervention motion is untimely. In addition, Milberg argues the motion is untimely because Laber did not file the motion to intervene in the 60 days prior to filing the fourth amended complaint. If he had done so, he could have been included in the amendment. First, Judge Collins holds that the motion is timely. Second, Laber has an independent ground for jurisdiction: He too was a putative plaintiff invested in a VALIC variable annuity. Third, the basis for Laber's claim rests upon the same factual and legal contentions as the main action. Moreover, unlike Bobbitt, Laber was invested in variable annuities and so his intervention protects the interests of a certain subset of class that Bobbitt may not be able to sufficiently represent. His position also contributes to development of the underlying factual issues in the suit. Finally, at this juncture, intervention will not unduly prolong litigation because as it stands, no defendant has answered the operative fourth amended complaint. The Judge finds that Laber's intervention is permissible. The Defendants object to amendment because of the age of the case and the number of previous amendments. They argue amendment would greatly prejudice them and unduly delay proceedings. They also claim amendment is futile because Bobbitt had no standing to join and Laber's claim is therefore time barred. The Judge holds that the case is old, but the procedural posture is not. A fifth amended complaint does not prejudice Milberg as it has not yet responded to the fourth amended complaint. Furthermore, Milberg has been aware of the likelihood of Laber's intervention for years. In addition, intervention will not require discovery to be reopened in its entirety but may merely necessitate disclosure of Laber's financial records and his deposition. There is also good cause for the amendment given the procedural posture of this case and as noted previously, Laber qualifies for permissive joinder. Thus, Bobbitt and Laber will be permitted to file a fifth amended complaint, adding Laber as a named party. Laber's Motion to Intervene is granted in part. Order Accordingly, Judge Collins granted in part Plaintiff Phillip Bobbitt's Motion for Reconsideration of, or, in the Alternative, Vacating of Order Denying Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. He vacated District Judge Zapata's Sept. 18, 2012 Order denying class certification. The Judge granted Plaintiff Bobbitt's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. The certified class includes the putative class members defined in section III(b) of the Order. The attorneys representing Phillip Bobbitt for the Motion for Class Certification are appointed as the class counsel for putative Plaintiffs. The Judge granted in part Intervenor Lance Laber's Reiterated Motion to Intervene or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The Plaintiff may file a fifth amended complaint adding Laber as a party plaintiff by June 18, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3une4erj from Leagle.com. MUD WTR INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MUD WTR, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MUD WTR, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03020 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MUD\WTR -- https://mudwtr.com/ -- is a coffee alternative consisting of organic ingredients lauded by cultures old and young for their health and performance benefits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sept 22 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENIO and ROSA CONTRERAS, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, TERESA BARNEY, KEITH and TERESA MARCEL, SHERLIE CHARLOT, and JENNIE MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SOLUTIONSTAR HOLDINGS LLC (N/K/A XOME HOLDINGS LLC), a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and SOLUTIONSTAR FIELD SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-00302-MCE-JDP (E.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Morrison C. England Jr. entered an order granting the Parties stipulated motion to extend case schedule deadlines as follows: Event Current Proposed New or Deadlines Extended Deadlines Class Certification Amended May 14, 2021 Sept. 3, 2021 Expert Report Deadline (for Plaintiffs): The Plaintiffs' Deadline to June 4, 2021 Sept. 22, 2021 File Motion for Class Certification: Class Certification Amended July 2, 2021 Oct. 20, 2021 Expert Report Deadline (for Defendants): The Defendants' Opposition July 30, 2021 Nov. 17, 2021 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: The Plaintiffs' Reply in Sept. 10, 2021 Dec. 29, 2021 Support of Motion for Class Certification: Class-Certification Expert Sept. 24, 2021 Jan. 22, 2022 Discovery Cutoff: Merits discovery cutoff: Dec. 13, 2021 April 22, 2022 Disclosure of Expert Feb. 4, 2022 May 25, 2022 Witnesses and Information Required by Rule 26(a)(2): Rebuttal Expert Reports March 14, 2022 July 1, 2022 Expert Discovery Cutoff April 18, 2022 Aug 8, 2022 Deadline for Parties to May 16, 2022 Sept. 2, 2022 File Dispositive Motions: A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34wBsX1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dean Kawamoto, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. Laura R. Gerber, Esq. Rachel E. Morowitz, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gobrist@kellerrohrback.com lgerber@kellerrohrback.com rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Nick Styant-Browne, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO L.L.P. 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com nick@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq. John B. Sullivan, Esq. Erik Kemp, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 E-mail: jbs@severson.com mks@severson.com ek@severson.com NCR CORPORATION: Achilles Suit Removed to D. Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Thomas Achilles v. NCR CORPORATION and MICHAEL HAYFORD, was removed from the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven, to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on May 17, 2021, and assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00682-VLB. The Plaintiff Thomas Achilles filed a class action complaint for unpaid overtime wages against NCR and Hayford on April 16, 2021 in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Donald E. Frechette, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 20 Church Street, 20th Floor Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Phone: (860) 525-5065 Fax: (860) 527-4198 Email: Donald.frechette@lockelord.com NEO TECHNOLOGY: July 1 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Portier v. NEO Technology Solutions, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-30111 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Assented Motion for Extension of Time to July 1, 2021 to file motion for class certification and until September 16, 2021 for the Defendant's response. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory Actions. Neo Tech was founded in 1996. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of computers, and computer peripheral equipment.[CC] NETFLIX INC: New Boston VSPA Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF NEW BOSTON, TEXAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NETFLIX, INC., and HULU, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00135-RWS (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its Motion for class certification and appointment of class representative and class counsel. New Boston moves for certification of the proposed Class because the issues in this case arise from the uniform application of Texas Video Services Providers Act ("VSPA"), which applies equally to all proposed Class members. The central question, which is dispositive for all proposed Class members, is whether Defendants Netflix are "video service providers" under the Act. The answer is the same for all proposed Class members: Defendants are indeed video service providers because they provide video programming comparable to programming provided by television broadcast stations over wires or cables located, at least in part, in public rights-of-way. This case involves more than 1,000 proposed Class members. Without a representative, aggregate action, thousands of municipalities and townships across the State of Texas will be required to institute their own separate actions to enforce the Act. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fPQg8s at no extra charge.[CC] The Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Austin Tighe, Esq. Michael Angelovich, Esq. C. Cary Patterson, Esq. NIX PATTERSON, LLP 3600 North Capital of Texas Highway Building B, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: 512-328-5333 E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com mangelovich@nixlaw.com cihrig@nixlaw.com ccp@nixlaw.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Mark S. Hamill, Esq. Brittany Hartwig, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: 440-953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com alevitt@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com - and - Peter Schneider, Esq. Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP 3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste. 1100 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 338-2560 E-mail: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com NEW HORIZON: Extension to Reply to Class Cert Opposition Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDOUL MALIK TAHIROU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. NEW HORIZON ENTERPRISES, LLC; ELIZABETH JOHNSON; JANELLE LESINKSY; and JOYCE MICHELLE CARSWELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00281-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order moving for a 30 day extension of time to respond to the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for FRCP Rule 23 Class Certification dated May 4, 2021, through and until June 17, 2021. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vH4csl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth W. Swedock, Esq. Mark P. Carey, Esq. Elizabeth W. Swedock, Esq. CAREY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 71 Old Post Road, Suite One Southport, CT 06890 Telephone: (203) 255-4150 Facsimile: (203) 255-0380 E-mail: mcarey@capclaw.com eswedock@capclaw.com NEW PEOPLES BANK: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ New Peoples Bankshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that New Peoples Bank, Inc. continues to defend a purported class action suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The Bank was named as a defendant in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on December 22, 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the Bank breached a contractual arrangement in the assessment of overdraft fees for the re-presentment of items previously returned due to lack of sufficient funds. The plaintiff is seeking class action status in its pursuit of this complaint. The Bank denies the allegation and intends to vigorously defend against this claim. New Peoples Bankshares said, "As no formal or specific financial demand has been made, and due to the preliminary status of this case, any possible loss cannot be estimated at this time." New Peoples Bankshares, Inc., is a Virginia bank holding company headquartered in Honaker, Virginia. New Peoples subsidiaries include: New Peoples Bank, Inc., a Virginia banking corporation and NPB Web Services, Inc., a web design and hosting company (NPB Web). NEW YORK ELEGANT: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Elegant Fabrics, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. New York Elegant Fabrics, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03012 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York Elegant Fabrics -- https://www.newyorkelegantfabrics.com/ -- is family owned fabric store serving fashion, theatricals and students for the last 30 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawfirm.net NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Landsdown Files Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New-Indy Catawba LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shirley Landsdown, Ethel Piercey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. New-Indy Catawba LLC, New-Indy Containerboard LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01586-JMC (D.S.C., May 27, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Environmental Matters. New-Indy -- https://newindycontainerboard.com/ -- is an independent, privately-owned manufacturer and supplier of corrugated boxes, recycled containerboard and virgin linerboard in the industrial packaging industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Paul Cantwell, Esq. CANTWELL LAW FIRM PO Box 600 Charleston, SC 29402 Phone: (843) 801-4104 Email: josh@cantwelllawfirm.org NIELLO MOTOR: Mcguckin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Niello Motor Car Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael Mcguckin, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Niello Motor Car Company, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00300943-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 17, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other employment Civil - Unlimited." Niello Motor Car Company -- https://www.niello.com/ -- provides automobiles services. The Company offers retail sale of new and used automobiles, finance, parts, and repairs services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2446 Phone: 310-888-7771 Fax: 310-888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com NOOM INC: Bid to Compel Sampling Protocol in Nichols Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MOJO NICHOLS, et al., Plaintiffs v. NOOM INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-3677 (LGS) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Sampling Protocol. In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Noom tricked consumers into signing up for its weight loss program via an autorenewal feature and made it difficult for consumers to cancel their Noom subscription. Discovery has been extensive and involves collection and review of data from multiple digital platforms. Due to the volume of data in some of Noom's data repositories (each of which contains millions of communications), the parties have met and conferred regarding collection of a sample of information from these repositories. The repositories are called UserVoice, Zendesk and GroupsMagic. Although Noom has reservations about the relevance and usefulness of the Plaintiffs' sampling methodology for UserVoice and Zendesk, Noom has agreed to produce samples from those repositories using the Plaintiffs' preferred methodology. Magistrate Judge Parker's decision addresses the parties' dispute about the methodology for sampling data from GroupsMagic. GroupsMagic is Noom's coaching chat repository. Consumers are assigned a coach who assists the consumer in using the Noom application and reaching weight loss goals. The coach also assists consumers who want to end their Noom subscription. The consumer and the coach communicate through the coach chat function, and the conversations are stored in GroupsMagic. When a user begins a coach chat, he or she is assigned a unique access code. GroupsMagic contains 9.8 million access codes. Each access code links to a chat log of every communication a Noom user has with his or her coach. Therefore, each of the 9.8 million chat logs may contain hundreds of communications that may span many months. In response to the Plaintiffs' document requests, Noom agreed to produce a representative sample of coach chats about cancellation and autorenewal, as well as coach training materials and scripts pertaining to Noom's autorenewal policy, refunds, cancellations, and any bot coaching. The Plaintiffs seek production of the entire chat log history for 2,500 unique Noom users, collected randomly from the GroupsMagic repository. They intend to conduct aggregate analyses of these communications to ascertain the number and frequency of cancellation and enrollment complaints that the Defendants received in connection with their trial period and automatic enrollment practices, as well as when the Defendants were notified by consumers that consumers were being deceived by the practices challenged in the litigation. The Plaintiffs would then extrapolate their findings onto the larger repository. Noom proposes limiting the dataset from which the random sample is generated to the coach chats of users who are likely to be members of the putative class, that is, users of the Healthy Weight program during the period Jan. 1, 2017 through the date of collection. It further proposes applying search terms to capture communications related to autorenewal, refunds, cancellations, and bot coaching and, after applying those search terms, extracting a list of access codes from the search term-positive results to which the Plaintiffs may apply the same randomization process the parties are using for Zendesk to identify 2,500 chat logs for production. After the randomized pull from the subset of chat logs found to contain relevant communications, Noom proposes further limiting the production by only producing communications within a 48-hour window of the search-term positive communication. Noom's rationale for so limiting the production is that the random sampling of 2,500 chat logs the Plaintiffs request may contain hundreds (if not more) of irrelevant discussions about users' weight-loss journey, food anxieties, life stressors, alcohol use, and other highly personal information. It also argues that the Plaintiffs' request is not proportional to the needs of the case insofar as it would have to redact protected health information and other personally identifying information from thousands of chats. Finally, it argues the purpose for which it agreed to produce the chats was simply to provide a sample of the types of communications had with coaches to terminate the program or complain about the autorenewal features of the program, not to provide data for statistical analysis. To minimize the chance that reviewers improperly tag relevant searches and to ensure that the search terms capture the majority of relevant chats, Noom has agreed to do two things. First, Noom has agreed to have two reviewers independently review a sample of the non-search term positive results. The reviewers will compare their results, and if there is any disagreement, a third, independent reviewer will facilitate a discussion to resolve the discrepancy in the coding. Once that process is complete, the reviewers will report the results, including a confidence interval, to demonstrate that the proposed search terms fail to capture only a reasonably small proportion of coach communications related to autorenewal, refunds, cancellations, and bot coaching. According to Noom's expert, this mechanism -- known as "content analysis" -- is a reasonable and appropriate safeguard to ensure that the population of communications given to the Plaintiffs covers the vast majority of relevant communications in the sampling. Second, Noom has agreed to run the same type of "content analysis" review on the search terms hits. Two reviewers will independently conduct a simultaneous review of the document set. To the extent there is any disagreement in the coding, a third, independent reviewer will facilitate a reconciliation to resolve the disagreement between the two reviewers. This practice is frequently used to resolve concerns over review bias in analyses of the content of communications. Turning first to the dataset from which the sample should be pulled, Judge Parker agrees with Noom that the sample should be generated only from users of the Healthy Weight program. These are the users whose chats could contain relevant information, as they are the users contemplated for the putative class. Any proper statistical analysis starts with a relevant pool; in the case, the putative class members are the relevant pool/population to study. She orders Noom to provide the Plaintiffs with the total number of unique access codes (that is, unique user-coach chats) in the population. There is no need for a start date limitation if Noom can segregate chats of those users who were in the Healthy Weight program. The next question is whether the subset of putative class member chats should be further culled by applying search terms to locate those chat logs with words that might indicate a chat including communications about autorenewal, refunds, cancellations, and bot coaching. Search terms are often used to cull emails and in fact are being used by the parties in the case to cull emails and other communications. The Plaintiffs' objection to their use here appears to be based on the intended purpose of their review of the chat logs. Unlike emails, they want to use statistics to analyze the percentage of users complaining about autorenewal and difficulty canceling their Noom subscription. Thus, while the particulars of the communications may be of interest, there is also an interest in ensuring a statistically sound sample for the purpose of this statistical analysis. Noom, in contrast, does not view the chat logs as data amenable to statistical analysis and therefore believes the argument about a statistically sound sample is a red herring. Rather, it reasons, it should only have to produce relevant and responsive chats. It also argues that it never agreed to produce the chats for statistical review. Judge Parker rejects Noom's argument in part. For a period of time, the only way to cancel a subscription was through a coach. Therefore, the coach chats will contain relevant information about canceling a subscription. To the extent the Plaintiffs wish to count the number of chats where users complained about autorenewal or difficulty canceling, they may do so. Noom can later make legal arguments about the validity and admissibility of such an analysis. There is no merit to Noom's argument that the Plaintiffs should be limited in their use of the information produced to support their claims. Accordingly, Noom should not apply search terms before generating the randomized sampling of 2,500 user-coach chats. Judge Parker is, however, concerned about the potentially large amount of highly personal, irrelevant information that would be produced through the Plaintiffs' proposal. A random sample from the total pool of Healthy Weight users can be generated, providing the statistical soundness that the Plaintiffs desire. After that sample of 2,500 chats is generated, however, a process can be applied to identify those among the sample that contain the types of communications that Plaintiffs are seeking. The Plaintiffs suggest that they will (1) conduct a linear review of the full chat logs for all 2,500 users to identify those containing communications they would deem "complaints" concerning the features of the Noom program at issue, (2) use that total as the numerator to ascertain the percentage of the 2,500 users who had such complaints, and (3) extrapolate that percentage onto the larger pool of Healthy Weight users from which the sample was generated. Noom, alternatively, suggests that search terms be applied to identify relevant chats. Insofar as the parties have already identified search terms to identify these types of communications, Judge Parker holds that Noom's proposal makes sense from an efficiency standpoint and from a standpoint of preventing disclosure of irrelevant communications and those that are highly personal to users. Noom can utilize its content analysis process to evaluate the "null set" among the 2,500 chats pulled to ensure the search terms were appropriately designed to identify the vast majority of relevant chats. It can similarly use its content analysis process to evaluate the chats returned as hits to ensure that they are properly tagged as relevant and responsive. Through this process, Judge Parker says, Noom can identify with a high degree of accuracy the number of users among the random sample of 2,500 who have relevant complaints. The Plaintiffs do not actually need to see the chats for the remainder of the 2,500 users for purposes of their statistical exercise or for any other purpose. Indeed, they are not entitled to them, as they do not contain relevant communications within the meaning of Rule 26. Next, Noom proposes that it be permitted to withhold portions of the chat logs for the complaining subset users to eliminate communications that do not bear on autorenewal, cancellation, and complaints about bot coaching. Rather than do this through a linear review of the chat logs, it proposes that it produce communications within a 48-hour window around a search term positive "hit" within a log. Noom does not explain why 48 hours is the appropriate time period to capture relevant communications. Judge Parker notes that it is possible that a user might have a conversation about canceling over a period of weeks. It is also possible that the entirety of the chat may include information about the user experience that led to the complaint about the autorenewal or other features of the program at issue in the case. Thus, Judge Parker is not convinced that the complaining subset of user-coach communications should be truncated by the 48-hour limitation, or any other limitation for that matter. Noom argues that it will need to review the chat logs and redact for personally identifying information and medical related information and that such a review is burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. However, Judge Parker has already cut the number of the 2,500-sample set that actually needs to be produced to only those chat logs comprising the complaining subset, which will inevitably reduce the review burden. Additionally, because there is a Protective Order in place, Noom can elect to forego redaction and rely on the Protective Order. To ensure greater protection, Noom also may designate the chats "attorneys' eyes only." Also, both parties are reminded that no personally identifying information of users may be publicly filed with the Court -- such information must be redacted per Court rules. Therefore, Noom can reduce its burden by relying on these privacy safeguards for this limited set of information. For the reasons she set forth, Judge Parker granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion. A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2cck56ua from Leagle.com. NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Class Certification Hearing Set for July 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the hearing on the motion for class certification in the putative class action suit initiated by George Barney is set for July 12, 2021. On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming the Company violated federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint. In an Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent a class of entities involved in any transaction in Nova's stock from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. They claim that during this period the Company: (1) overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in its planned $460 million senior care center in China; and (2) inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with two major customers. Plaintiffs claim that the falsity of these representations was exposed in a blog posted on the Seeking Alpha website in which it was claimed that an investigation failed to confirm the existence of several entities identified as significant customers. Plaintiffs, however, have offered no evidence of falsity other than the Seeking Alpha blog. Nova denies that there were any misstatements made in its public disclosures. It also, inter alia, challenges plaintiffs' ability to establish loss causation and damages. By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Nova, Ms. Lam and Mr. Chuang filed. The Nova Defendants accordingly answered the Amended Complaint. The Court entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial conference for July 20, 2020 that has now been extended until an unspecified date in August, 2021. On April 9, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify a Class. A hearing on this Motion has been set for July 12, 2021. Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide. Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Commerce, California. OAKLAND, CA: Opposition to Class Certification Bid Due June 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTI POLICE-TERROR PROJECT, COMMUNITY READY CORPS, SEAN CANADAY, MICHAEL COHEN, MICHAEL COOPER, ANDREA COSTANZO, JOHNATHAN FARMER, LINDSEY FILOWITZ, DANIELLE GAITO, KATIE JOHNSON, BRYANNA KELLY, JENNIFER LI, IAN McDONNELL, MELISSA MIYARA, LINDSEY MORRIS, LEILA MOTTLEY, NIKO NADA, AZIZE NGO, NICOLE PULLER, MARIA RAMIREZ, AKIL RILEY, AARON ROGACHEVSKY, TARA ROSE, ASHWIN RUPAN, DANIEL SANCHEZ, CHRISTINA STEWART, TAYAH STEWART, KATHERINE SUGRUE, CELESTE WONG, and QIAOCHU ZHANG; on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, OPD Police Chief SUSAN E. MANHEIMER, OPD Sergeant PATRICK GONZALES, OPD Officer MAXWELL D'ORSO and OPD Officer CASEY FOUGHT, Case No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge JOSEPH C. SPERO entered a briefing schedule order for plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: -- Defendants' Opposition Due: June 18, 2021 -- Plaintiffs' Reply Due: July 9, 2021 -- Hearing Date: August 6, 2021 Oakland is a city on the east side of San Francisco Bay, in California. Jack London Square has a statue of the writer, who frequented the area. Nearby, Old Oakland features restored Victorian architecture and boutiques. Near Chinatown, the Oakland Museum of California covers state history, nature and art. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34xn9l3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walter Riley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WALTER RILEY 1407 Webster Street, Suite 206 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 451-1422 Facsimile: (510) 451-0406 E-mail: walterriley@rrrandw.com - and - Dan Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com - and - James Douglas burch, Esq. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 285-5067 x.104 E-mail: james_burch@nlgsf.org OHIO RENAL: Freeman Conditional Certification Bid Due August 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Freeman v. Ohio Renal Care Group LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02402 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order for following schedule: -- Motions to amend pleading or add additional parties due Aug. 25, 2021; -- Motions directed to the pleadings due Aug. 25, 2021; -- The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification under Fair labor Standard Act (FLSA) due Aug. 25, 2021; -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23 due Oct. 26, 2021; -- Fact discovery cut-off is Dec. 27, 2021; -- Dispositive motion deadline is Jan. 25, 2022; -- Expert discovery cut-off is April 28, 2022; -- Initial Expert Report(s) due Feb. 28, 2022; and -- Rebuttal expert report(s) due March 31, 2022. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Renal Care Group Eastern Ohio LLC provides dialysis facilities. The Company produces dialysis equipment, dialyzers, and related disposable products, as well as supplies of renal pharmaceuticals.[CC] OPINEL USA: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opinel USA Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Opinel USA Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03010-WFK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Opinel -- https://www.opinel-usa.com/ -- has been manufacturing knives and tools in the French Alps since 1890.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawfirm.net OREGON DOC: Menefee Action Stayed Pending Resolution in Maney ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANDREW LARONN MENEFEE, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COFFEE CREEK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DOUG SHEPPARD; and COLETTE PETERS, Case No. 3:20-cv-02024-SB (D. Oreg.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to stay action pending resolution of class certification in the Maney case. On April 28, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to stay this matter pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney. Maney Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on May 3, 2021. LeAndrew Menefee, a self-represented litigant in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Colette Peters, Dough Sheppard, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility (CCCF) and ODOC, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. Menefee is an adult in custody (AIC) of ODOC and is currently housed at the Oregon State Penitentiary. On November 19, 2020, Menefee filed this action against Defendants, alleging that Defendants knowingly exposed him to COVID-19 and that ODOC's failure adequately to respond to COVID-19 violates his Eighth Amendment rights. The Maney Plaintiffs allege that the Maney Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to their health and safety by failing adequately to protect them from COVID-19 through social distancing, testing, sanitizing, medical treatment, masking, and vaccines. The Maney Plaintiffs assert allegations on behalf of a class of similarly situated AICs, and propose three classes: (1) the Damages Class; (2); the Vaccine Class; and (3) the Wrongful Death Class. On January 21, 2021, the Maney Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction requiring ODOC to offer all AICs housed in ODOC facilities a COVID-19 vaccine, and sought provisional class certification of the Vaccine Class, which includes: "All adults in custody housed at Oregon Department of Corrections facilities (ODOC) who have not been offered COVID-19 vaccinations." On February 2, 2021, this Court granted the Maney Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification of the Vaccine Class and motion for a preliminary injunction. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0WKWc at no extra charge.[CC] OREGON DOC: Seeks Stay of Albrecht Case Pending Resolution in Maney ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ABO, et al., v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an agency of the State of Oregon, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00196-SB (d. Oreg.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying the Albrecht case pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney. The Defendants move to stay this case pending the resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al., 6:20-cv-00570. This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") and/or related persons in the District of Oregon. Defendants will be seeking a brief stay of all individual cases that could fit within the putative classes of plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney. A brief stay in this matter is appropriate pending the resolution of the class certification issues in Maney. The plaintiffs in the Maney matter bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that defendants acted with deliberate indifference and negligence to plaintiffs’ health by failing to adequately protect them from COVID-19 by, among other things, implementation and enforcement of mask requirements, proper sanitization and disinfection, implementation and enforcement of proper quarantines and social distancing, prioritization of adults in custody for vaccine distribution. The Maney plaintiffs seek to certify the following putative classes: (1) a damages class that is composed of individuals that have been housed in ODOC facilities on or after February 1, 2020 and have contracted COVID-19 at least 14 days after they entered ODOC custody; (2) a vaccine class comprising of all individuals housed in ODOC facilities who had not been offered COVID-19 vaccination as of January 1, 2021; and (3) a wrongful death class consisting of the estates of adults incarcerated at ODOC facilities continuously since February 1, 2020 who died on or after March 8, 2020 and for whom COVID-caused or contributed to their death. The Plaintiffs include KYLE ADAMS; JAMES ADAMS-LEAL; JOEL ALBRECHT; DANIEL ALCAZAR; MOHAMMED ALI; BRETT ANDRE; JACOB ANTHONY; HOWARD ARMITAGE; TYLER BACON; GIOVANNI BARR; TADARIO BATTLE; JASON BEAVER; JOHN BENGE; ROBERT BERNO; DAVID BERTOCH; JAMES BERGOSIAN; OSCAR CANAS; HERMAN CARTER; CHRISTIAN CAREY; THOMAS CHAMBERY; FOY CHANDLER; KEVIN CHRIST; ROBERT CLEMENT; SHAWN CLINE; GREG COFFMAN; DEREK COLE; JAMES COYLE; SKY CRAWFORD; CARL CREECH; TODD CULVER; DANIEL CUMMINGS; SHAWN CUTLER; CHRIS DAVIS-MCCOY; LESLIE DEGARMO; XAVIER DELEON-CARBAJAL; JUSTIN DENNEY; ZACHARY DRAPER; HILMI ELADEM; DAVID ENDSLEY; UVALDO ESPERICUETA; RICKY EXE; CRAIG FARQUHARSON; DANIEL FELTON; MICHEY FIEZ; JOSEPH FLETCHER; BASIM FLORO; DANIEL FOWLER; QUINTON FRANKLIN; SCOTT FRAZIER; TERRY FULLER; EFFIE FULTON; DANIEL GARCIA; DANIEL GARGES; BILLY GARMAN; DOUGLAS GASKILL; VAUGHN GATCHELL; URIAH GIBSON; JACOB GRANGER; MATTHEW HANLON; JOHN HARSEN; CODY HATLEY; TIMOTHY HENKEL; JOHN HERMANN; TERRY HICKMAN; NORMAN HOAG; NICHOLAS HOGAN; JEFFREY HOSKINS; ABEL IBARRA-FRANCO; LUTHER JACKSON; DERRICK JAY; DANIEL JOHNSON; RYAN JOHNSON; DONALD JONES; RANDALL JORDAN; MICHAEL KELLEY; ALAN KENTTA; LAURENCE KING; CHRISTOPHER KITTLER; KORI KNISLEY; MATTHEW LAMER; STANLEY LEONARD; CHRISTOPHER LORENZEN; GERARDO LUNA-BENITEZ; MYLO LUPOLI; JOSEPH MACE; DAVID MANLEY; TROY MARIN; GLEN MARSHALL; ALBERT MARVITZ; MATTHEW MASON; ERIC MCCLAIN; BRANDON MCLANE; DUSTIN MIKALOW; PETER MILLARD; MARVIN MITCHELL; PAUL MONTEJO; RANDAL MOTT; ROBIN MUIR; LELAND NICHOLSON; KYLE NONNEMAN; JOSEPH OHRMUND; DANIEL ORTIZ; JOSHUA OVALLE; RYAN PEARSON; MARK PECK; SEAN PEN; DANIEL PERRY; ANTHONY PERSON; JOSHUA POSTEMA; RONALD POWERS; CALEB PRATT; ZACHARY PRAUSS; LONNY PRINCE; TOREN PRUDEN; ANCLE REED; SHAWN RICHEY; ROCKY ROBISON; DANIEL RODRIGUEZ; FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ; JACOB ROGERS; CLAYTON SALIKIE; KELLY SANSBURN; KURTIS SELF; ROY SHINALL; MAXVILLE SINCAIR; GARY SLOAN; ADAM SMITH; BRETT SMITH; NATHANIEL SMITH; ROBERT STEWART; PETER STROTHER; MATTHEW STOCKWELL; MARK TEMPLETON; RYAN THOMAS; FREDDIE TILLETT; BRYAN TRIMBLE; EDWARD TOWNSEND; TREVOR TROLLOPE; RYAN VANHORN; COREY WADE; JAMES WAGNER; ROBERT WALKER; TRACY WALLS; RICHARD WEAVER; MICHAEL WHEELER; ANTHONY WHITE; JONATHAN WHITE; JACOB WHITT; BRANDON WILLIS; CHARLES WITHROW; WAYNE WOODRUFF; JUSTIN WOODS; RICHARD WRIGHT; and TYLER YOUNG. The Defendants include OREGON CORRECTIONS ENTERPRISES, a semi-independent state agency; PAULA MYERS; NICHOLE BROWN; COLETTE PETERS; SUE WASHBURN; BRAD CAIN; TIM CAUSEY; JOSH HIGHBERGER; BRANDON KELLY; MIKE GOWER; MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; TYLER BLEWETT; KEN JESKE; LIZA EMORY; and DAVID PEDRO. A copy of the Defendants motion dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wIC6Nm at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for Defendants Brown, Blewett, Cain, Causey, Emory, Gower, Highberger, Jeske, Kelly, Myers, Nooth, Oregon Department of Corrections, Oregon Corrections Enterprises, Pedro, Persson, Peters, and Washburn, are: Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq. Tracy Ickes White, Esq. Andrew Hallman, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Telephone: (503) 947-4700 Facsimile: (503) 947-4791 E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us Andrew.Hallman@doj.state.or.us OREGON DOC: Seeks to Stay Yocum Case Pending Resolution in Maney ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERALD D. YOCUM, v. Kimberly Hendricks Superintendent-Santiam Correctional Institution, C/O Watkins, C/O Fonseca, Nurse Greg McNabb, Dr. Dewsnup, Dr. DiGiulio, C/O. Golds, C/O Byers, Case No. 6:20-cv-01923-MK (D. Oreg.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying this case pending the resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00570. This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") and/or related persons in the District of Oregon. Defendants will be seeking a brief stay of all individual cases that could fit within the putative classes of plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney. The Defendants says that a brief stay in this matter is appropriate pending the resolution of the class certification issues in Maney. The plaintiffs in the Maney matter bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that defendants acted with deliberate indifference and negligence to plaintiffs' health by failing to adequately protect them from COVID-19 by implementation and enforcement of mask requirements, proper sanitization and disinfection, implementation and enforcement of proper quarantines and social distancing, prioritization of adults in custody for vaccine distribution. Maney, Fourth Amended Complaint. The Maney plaintiffs seek to certify the following putative classes: (1) a damages class that is composed of individuals that have been housed in ODOC facilities on or after February 1, 2020 and have contracted COVID-19 at least 14 days after they entered ODOC custody; (2) a vaccine class comprising of all individuals housed in ODOC facilities who had not been offered COVID-19 vaccination as of January 1, 2021; and (3) a wrongful death class consisting of the estates of adults incarcerated at ODOC facilities continuously since February 1, 2020 who died on or after March 8, 2020 and for whom COVID-19 caused or contributed to their death. The Oregon Department of Corrections is the agency of the U.S. state of Oregon charged with managing a system of 14 state prisons. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yYwVLc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq. Tracy Ickes White, Esq. Andrew Hallman, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Telephone: (503) 947-4700 Facsimile: (503) 947-4791 E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us andrew.hallman@doj.state.or.us OUTLAW LAB: Reply to Skyline Class Certification Bid Due June 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE OUTLAW LABORATORIES, LP LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00840-GPC-BGS (S.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order setting the following briefing schedule. -- Any opposition shall be filed on or before May 25, 2021. -- Any reply shall be filed on or before June 1, 2021. -- A hearing on this matter is scheduled for July 2, 2021 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D. Third-Party Plaintiff Skyline Market filed a Motion for Class Certification. Outlaw is a leading authorized online retailer of discount supplements & vitamins. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yJXmUA at no extra charge.[CC] PACKAGED SEAFOOD: Initial Approval Bids in Antitrust Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-md-02670-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jannis L. Sammartino entered an order: -- The hearing date set for May 20, 2021 to hear the Preliminary Approval Motions is vacated. -- The Preliminary Approval Motions are denied as premature. -- The Order to Show Cause is discharged. The Court cannot consider certification of settlement classes until the Court of Appeals issues a mandate. This conclusion is not altered by COSI Defendants' dismissal of their appeal or the prospect of en banc proceedings. The Court said, "The reasons for vacating the Class Certification Order do not rest on Rule 23(b)(3)(D) -- "likely difficulties in managing a class action" -- but the overarching 25 question whether "the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and apply whether the putative class actions are settled or further litigated." A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oVwiNV at no extra charge.[CC] PARKING REIT: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the final settlement approval hearing in the purported class action suit initiated by SIPDA Revocable Trust (SIPDA), is set on July 16, 2021. On March 12, 2019, alleged stockholder SIPDA filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, against the Company and certain of its current and former directors. SIPDA filed an Amended Complaint on October 11, 2019. The Amended Complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all public shareholders of the Company and MVP I between August 11, 2017 and April 1, 2019 in connection with the (i) August 2017 proxy statements filed with the SEC to obtain shareholder approval for the merger of the Company and MVP I (the "2017 proxy statements"), and (ii) August 2018 proxy statement filed with the SEC to solicit proxies for the election of certain directors (the "2018 proxy statement"). The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the 2017 proxy statements were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the alleged two major reasons for the merger and certain charter amendments implemented in connection therewith were (i) to facilitate the execution of an amended advisory agreement that allegedly was designed to benefit Mr. Michael Shustek financially in the event of an internalization and (ii) to give Mr. Shustek the ability to cause the Company to internalize based on terms set forth in the amended advisory agreement. The Amended Complaint further alleges, among other things, that the 2018 proxy statement failed to disclose the Company's purported plan to internalize its management function. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that all defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by disseminating proxy statements that allegedly contain false and misleading statements or omit to state material facts; (ii) that the director defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iii) that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties under Maryland law to the members of the class and to the Company. The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages; declaratory relief; and the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and expenses. On June 13, 2019, the court granted SIPDA's motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff. The litigation is still at a preliminary stage. On January 9, 2020, the Company and the director defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Upon being advised by the parties that they are engaged in on-going, active settlement efforts, on November 30, 2020, the court denied the pending motions to dismiss without prejudice as moot and subject to refiling if the settlement efforts are not successful. The Company and the Board of Directors have reviewed the allegations in the Amended Complaint and believe the claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend this action if the parties cannot complete the settlement in connection with the Maryland Actions, which settlement if approved by the Court includes dismissal of this Federal Action. On November 20, 2020, the parties to the Maryland Actions executed a Term Sheet setting forth the terms for a settlement in principle to resolve the pending lawsuits. On April 13, 2021, the parties, including the plaintiff in the Federal Action, signed a stipulation of settlement for a class-based settlement that provided, among other terms, for (1) a payment of at least $2.5 million into a settlement fund; (2) certain other forms of relief in connection with the Bombe Transaction, including a tender offer by a Bombe affiliate for approximately 15% of the outstanding common stock, the purchase of certain shares of stock from the former Advisor for the benefit of the class members, and the extinguishment of certain shares of common stock issued to the former Advisor in connection with the internalization in 2019; and (3) the dismissal of the Federal Action and the Maryland Actions (the “Settlement”). The Settlement is contingent upon final approval by the Maryland Circuit Court, and upon consummation of the Bombe Transaction. On April 20, 2021, the Maryland Circuit Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, allowing for notice to be given to the class members of the Settlement, and scheduled a hearing on final approval for July 16, 2021. The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December 31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. PARKING REIT: Settlement Hearing on Magowski Suit Set for July 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the final settlement approval hearing in the consolidated "Magowski and Barene" suit, is set on July 16, 2021. On May 31, 2019, and June 27, 2019, two alleged stockholders filed separate class action lawsuits alleging direct and derivative claims against the Company, certain of our current and former directors, MVP Realty Advisors, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, and Vestin Realty Mortgage II in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, captioned Arthur Magowski v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, No. 24-C-19003125 (filed on May 31, 2019) and Michelle Barene v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, No. 24-C-19003527 (filed on June 27, 2019). The Magowski Complaint asserts purportedly direct claims under Maryland law on behalf of all stockholders (other than the defendants and persons or entities related to or affiliated with any defendant) for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from the Company's decision to internalize its advisory function. In this Complaint, Plaintiff Magowski asserts that the stockholders have allegedly been directly injured by the internalization and related transactions. The Barene Complaint asserts both direct and derivative claims under Maryland law for breach of fiduciary duty arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the Magowski Complaint. The purportedly direct claims are asserted on behalf of the same class of stockholder as the purportedly direct claims in the Magowski Complaint, and the derivative claims in the Barene Complaint are asserted on behalf of the Company. On September 12 and 16, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Magowski and Barene Complaints, respectively. The Magowski and Barene Complaints seek, among other things, damages; declaratory relief; equitable relief to reverse and enjoin the internalization transaction; and the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and expenses. Although the motions to dismiss were fully briefed, the Court had not ruled on the motions when the parties informed the Court of their settlement discussions and requested a stay of the proceedings. Prior to the stay request, limited discovery was conducted in these actions. By Order dated March 11, 2021, the Court consolidated the Magowski and Barene actions for all purposes. . The Company and the Board of Directors intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits if the parties cannot complete the class-based settlement described below, which settlement must be approved by the Court and would include dismissal of the Maryland Actions and the Federal Action initiated by SIPDA Revocable Trust. The Magowski Complaint also previewed that a stockholder demand would be made on the Company's Board of Directors to take action with respect to claims belonging to the Company for the alleged injury to the Company. On June 19, 2019, Magowski submitted a formal demand letter to the Board asserting similar alleged wrongdoing as alleged in the Magowski Complaint and demanding that the Board investigate the alleged wrongdoing and take action to remedy the alleged injury to the Company. The demand includes that claims be initiated against the same defendants as are named in the Magowski Complaint. In response to this stockholder demand letter, on July 16, 2019, the Board established a demand review committee to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing made in the letter and to make a recommendation to the Board for a response to the letter. On September 27, 2019, the Board replaced the demand review committee with a special litigation committee of one director. The special litigation committee was empowered, with the assistance of independent counsel, to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing made in the letter and make a final determination regarding the response for the Company to the demand. In light of the settlement effort discussed below, the work of the special litigation committee has been suspended. On November 20, 2020, the parties to the Maryland Actions executed a Term Sheet setting forth the terms for a settlement in principle to resolve the pending lawsuits. On April 13, 2021, the parties, including the plaintiff in the Federal Action, signed a stipulation of settlement for a class-based settlement that provided, among other terms, for (1) a payment of at least $2.5 million into a settlement fund; (2) certain other forms of relief in connection with the Bombe Transaction, including a tender offer by a Bombe affiliate for approximately 15% of the outstanding common stock, the purchase of certain shares of stock from the former Advisor for the benefit of the class members, and the extinguishment of certain shares of common stock issued to the former Advisor in connection with the internalization in 2019; and (3) the dismissal of the Federal Action and the Maryland Actions. The Settlement is contingent upon final approval by the Maryland Circuit Court, and upon consummation of the Bombe Transaction. On April 20, 2021, the Maryland Circuit Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, allowing for notice to be given to the class members of the Settlement, and scheduled a hearing on final approval for July 16, 2021. The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December 31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. PASCHALL TRUCK: Seeks Oral Argument for Rule 23 Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALE CARTER and FORBES HAYS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC.; ELEMENT FLEET MANAGEMENT CORP.; and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 5:18-cv-00041-BJB-LLK (W.D. Ky.), the Defendant Paschall Truck asks the Court for oral argument given the complexity of the issues presented by Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23(b)(3) Class Certification, and PTL's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Additionally, PTL would like an opportunity to address several new arguments Plaintiffs asserted for the first time in their reply in support of their motion for class certification, including the following: -- Unjust Enrichment Claim The argument Plaintiffs advance in their reply about why the unjust enrichment claim should be certified is essentially an opening brief, not a reply. -- Forced Labor Claim The Plaintiffs advance two new arguments on this claim. First, although the Plaintiffs claimed in their motion that they could demonstrate the causation element of their Forced Labor Claim on a classwide basis, they abandon that argument in their reply. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yLaB7r at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Defendant Paschall Truck, are: Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq. E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. Karen B. Reisinger, Esq. James A. Eckhart, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com apaynter@scopelitis.com kreisinger@scopelitis.com jeckhart@scopelitis.com - and - Van F. Sims, Esq. MILLER HAHN, PLLC 2660 West Park Drive, Suite 2 Paducah, KY 42001 Telephone: (270) 554-0051 Facsimile: (866) 578-2230 E-mail: vsims@millerlaw-firm.com PAUL KEMPER: Shaw Suit Files Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRANCE J. SHAW, v. WARDEN PAUL S. KEMPER, ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-00622-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order defining the Class, and the class claims issues, or defenses, and name class counsel. The Plaintiffs present this Motion For Certification of the Class against Racine Correctional Institution (RCI) which leads as the number one leader of Covid-19 infections with multiple deaths in the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WDOC). The Racine Correctional Institution is a state prison for men located in Sturtevant, Racine County, Wisconsin, owned and operated by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. The facility opened in 1991 and holds 1573 inmates at medium security. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wHHsYZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Eastman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Philadelphia. The case is styled as Kathleen Eastman, Mary Henin, Amanda Hay, Matthew Allen, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:21-cv-02248-MSG (E.D. Pa., May 17, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city -- https://www.phila.gov/ -- is notable for its rich history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall (where the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signed) and other American Revolutionary sites.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC One S. Broad St., Ste. 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 238-1700 Fax: (215) 238-1968 Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com - and - Craig W. Hillwid, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Aarthi Manohar, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 238-1700 Fax: (215) 238-1968 Email: chillwig@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com amanohar@kohnswift.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Trial Not Needed in Guzman Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Guzman, et al. v. Polaris Industries Inc., et al., Case No. e 8:19-cv-01543-FLA-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and 2. mooting the following the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Certification "Reply" Report and Plaintiffs' Use of Merits Reports in Their Class Certification Reply Brief, and the remaining portions of Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting Amendment of the Scheduling Order to Continue Outstanding Motions, Discovery, and Trial Deadlines by 185 days. The Defendants Polaris sell various models of off-road vehicles that allow occupants to sit side by side. The Defendants' vehicles are sold under the brand names "RZR," "Ranger," and "General." Each vehicle is equipped with a roll cage, which is also known as a rollover protective structure or "ROPS." /The shape, configuration, and design of the ROP differs among Polaris' side-by-side vehicle models. Polaris voluntarily complies with the American National Standards Institute ("ANSI")/Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (""ROHVA") standard for ROPS's, which provides that the ROPS shall comply with the performance requirements of either International Organization for Standardization ("ISO") standard 3471 or 29 C.F.R. section 1928.53. A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bXXq9B at no extra charge.[CC] PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Sagastume Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENMA SAGASTUME, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06624-DSF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 23, 2021 to enter an order: 1. certifying the following Class and Subclasses: -- Class "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant Psychemedics Corporation within the State of California at any time during the period from June 9, 2017 up to the deadline, to be determined by the Court at a later date, by which class members may opt-out after being provided notice of certification (the "Class Period"). -- Meal Period Subclass: All members of the Class who worked at least one shift of more than five hours at any time during the Class Period. -- Rest Period Subclass: All members of the Class who worked at least one shift of three and one-half hours or more at any time during the Class Period. -- Meal Premium Regular Rate Subclass: "All members of the Class who received a meal premium payment calculated at their base hourly rate of pay at any time during the Class Period." -- Rest Premium Regular Rate Subclass: "All members of the Class who received a rest premium payment calculated at their base hourly rate of pay at any time during the Class Period;" -- Expense Reimbursement Subclass: All members of the Class who were not reimbursed for necessary business-related expenses incurred, including but not limited to supplies, parking, and use of personal vehicles for work purposes. -- On Site Rest Break Subclass: "All current and former hourly paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant within the State of California at any time during the Class Period, who were required to remain on company premises during all rest breaks. -- Rounding Subclass: "All members of the Class who were subject to Psychemedics' rounding policy during the Class Period. -- Automatically Deducted 30-Meal Period Subclass: "All members of the Class whose 30-minute meal period was automatically deducted from their pay while employed by Psychemedics. -- Regular Rate Subclass: "All members of the Class who earned non-discretionary bonuses and other incentive-based compensation, which was not used to calculate the regular rate of pay used to calculate the overtime rate for the payment of overtime wages during the Class Period;" 2. appointing Plaintiff Enma Sagastume as the class representative; 3. appointing Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Daniel J. Kramer of Lawyers for Justice, PC as class counsel; 4. requiring the Defendant to provide to counsel for the Plaintiff a list of all potential class members including their names, social security numbers, last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last known addresses for class notice purposes, within 30 days following this Court's order granting class certification; and 5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel promptly meet and confer regarding a form of notice to the class and submit either an agreed upon form or their respective requested forms to this Court within 20 days following this Court's order In the alternative, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court exercise its broad discretion and certify narrower or broader classes if the Court deems it so appropriate. Psychemedics Corporation is a United States corporation which provides patented, FDA-cleared, CAP certified clinical laboratory services for the detection of drugs of abuse. The company's corporate headquarters are located in Acton, Massachusetts and its laboratory operations are located in Culver City, California. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fRvAwK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Arby Aiwazian, Esq. Daniel J. Kramer, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com arby@calljustice.com daniel@calljustice.com QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Amended Complaint Drops Class Allegations ------------------------------------------------------------ Quantumscape Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the class allegations have been dropped in the amended complaint in the suit pending before the New York State Supreme Court. On December 11, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New York State Supreme Court by a purported QuantumScape warrantholder against the Company. The company removed the case to federal court. On March 25, 2021, plaintiff amended the complaint to drop the class allegations. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiff was entitled to exercise his warrants within 30 days of the closing of the business combination between QuantumScape and Kensington and that the proxy statement/prospectus/information statement dated September 21, 2020 and November 12, 2020 is misleading and/or omits material information concerning the exercise of the warrants. The complaint seeks monetary damages for alleged breach of contract, securities law violations, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Quantumscape Corporation develops next generation battery technology for electric vehicles ("EVs") and other applications. The company is based in San Jose, California. QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: CA Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Quantumscape Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consoldiated putative class action suit in California. Between January 5, 2021 and January 8, 2021, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California by purported purchasers of QuantumScape securities against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer or against the Company and certain members of management and the Board of Directors, and Volkswagen Group of America Investments, LLC (VGA). All three complaints allege that the defendants purportedly made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects, including information regarding the company's battery technology. One complaint alleges a purported class that includes all persons who purchased or acquired our securities between December 8, 2020 and December 31, 2020. The other two complaints allege a purported class that includes all persons who purchased or acquired the company's securities between November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020. On April 20, 2021, the three actions were consolidated, with the Court appointing lead plaintiff and counsel. Quantumscape Corporation develops next generation battery technology for electric vehicles ("EVs") and other applications. The company is based in San Jose, California. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN VARGAS, ANNE WEST, and AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS HOLDINGS, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an scheduling order as follows: Last Hearing Date for Continued from July 2, 2021 Class Certification: to October 29, 2021 Last day to file Motion September 10, 2021; for Class Certification: Last day to file Opposition October 1, 2021 to Motion for Class Certification: Last day to file Reply to October 15, 2021 Class Certification Motion: The Court notes that, with this stipulated extension of the class certification briefing schedule, and assuming the parties wait till the last possible date to file, the parties may have to prepare for trial before the Court has ruled on class certification, and the parties will have no opportunity to file dispositive motions. Given that the parties have stipulated to this extension of time with full knowledge of the consequences, the Court WILL NOT grant any further requests for continuance. Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A Fortune 500 company, Quest operates in the United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Brazil. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fWCBfL at no extra charge.[CC] QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sept. 10 Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN VARGAS, ANNE WEST, and AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS HOLDINGS, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate, agree, and ask the Court to enter scheduling Order be amended to reflect the following dates and deadlines related to class certification, as follows: -- Last Hearing Date for Class Certification: October 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (currently July 2, 2021); -- Last day to file Motion for Class Certification: September 10, 2021; -- Last day to file Opposition to Class Certification Motion: October 1, 2021; -- Last day to file Reply to Class Certification Motion: October 15, 2021; and -- The remaining dates set forth in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 66) will remain the same. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uvRNpD at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Julian Vargas, Anne West, American Council of the Blind, and the Proposed Class, are: Jonathan D. Miller, Esq. Alison M. Bernal, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 E-mail: jonathan@nshmlaw.com alison@nshmlaw.com ben@nshmlaw.com - and - Matther K. Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 777 6 th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-2411 E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com The Attorneys for Defendants Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Quest Diagnostics Holdings, Inc. and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, are: David Raizman, Esq. Amber L. Roller, Esq. J. Nicholas Marfori OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & TEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 E-mail: david.raizman@ogletree.com amber.roller@ogletree.com nicholas.marfori@ogletree.com R&R EXPRESS: Rood Seeks to Strike Late Response to Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEN ROOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. R&R EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01223-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order striking the Defendant's response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and Final Certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The basis for this motion is that Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification two days after it was due. By order dated April 16, 2021, the Court denied the Parties' joint motion to extend the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed his motion for class and collective certification within the deadline set by the Court's scheduling order dated January 29, 2021. Per that scheduling order, the Defendant's opposition, if any, was due on May 17, 2021. The Defendant filed its opposition on May 19, 2021, two days after the deadline had expired. The Defendant did not seek an extension before the deadline expired, and Defendant provided no explanation for missing the deadline. The Court should not excuse the Defendant's late filing. The Court has emphasized in several orders that the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order were firm. And the Court denied the Parties' joint request to extend the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion by one business day, the Plaintiff contends. R&R provides transportation and logistics services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fFVLYJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, are: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP LLC 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106-4107 Telephone: (412) 278-1280 E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net RADIUS GLOBAL: Dunlap Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL ROSHECK DUNLAP, individually and on behalf of the class defined herein, Plaintiffs v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02196-TWT-CCB (N.D. Ga., May 26, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendants for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In an attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt arising out of student loans with Navient, the Defendant sent her a written correspondence on or about April 15, 2021. But, instead of preparing and mailing a collection letter on its own, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff's private information and the details concerning her alleged debt, electronically to a commercial mail house in Oaks, Pennsylvania without the Plaintiff's prior consent. Allegedly, the Defendant intentionally made these communications in order to gain an advantage over other debt collectors and generate additional profits. By disclosing the Plaintiff's private information to a third-party without authorization, the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692c(b) and 1692E(2) and (10) due to the multiple addresses on the correspondence. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful collection practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages and all other applicable relief. Radius Global Solutions, LLC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meredith J. Carter, Esq. Brian M. Clark, Esq. M. CARTER LAW LLC 2690 Cobb Pakrway SE, Suite A5-294 Smyrna, GA 30080 Tel: (404) 618-3838 E-mail: meredith@mcartellaw.com RAZVAN POP: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due August 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRELA USELMANN, et al., v. RAZVAN POP, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13652-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered a scheduling order as follows: Initial Disclosures Exchanged by: May 28, 2021 Amendments to the Pleadings: June 18, 2021 Lay Witness List filed by: July 19, 2021 Expert Witness List Filed by July 19, 2021/ (Pla/Dft): August 19, 2021 Class Certification Motions Due: August 16, 2021 Discovery Cutoff: (Class & Merit) November 18, 2021 Dispositive Motion Cutoff: December 20, 2021 Case Evaluation (without December 1, 2021 sanctions, unless the parties so stipulate): Settlement Conference before February 2022 Magistrate Judge David R. Grand Motions in Limine due: March 1, 2022 Final Pretrial Order due: March 1, 2022 Final Pretrial Conference: March 15, 2022 Trial Date: March 29, 2022 Jury/Bench Jury Estimated 7-10 days Length of Trial A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p5fMdX at no extra charge.[CC] READING INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Brown & Wagner Class Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reading International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company still defends itself against the class suits initiated by Taylor Brown and Peter M. Wagner. The company is currently involved in two California employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern, Case No. BCV-19-1000390 and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual, vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO. 37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL. Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but not served until June 24, 2019. These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys' fees, relating to alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay upon termination and wage statements violations. Wagner v. CEI was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in June 2019. The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on the company by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq) purportedly asserting in a representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute, overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint. On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL. Neither plaintiff has specified the amount of damages sought. The company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend the allegations of the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint. In addition, the company had denied that a PAGA representative action is appropriate. These matters are in their early stages, and the putative class actions have not been certified. As these cases are in early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes that its potential liability with respect to such matters is not material to its overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for loss in connection with these matters. The Wagner Individual Complaint has been settled. Reading International, Inc., is focused on the development, ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, RDI operates through two segments: cinema exhibition and real estate. The cinema exhibition segment operates multiplex cinemas. RDI's real estate segment includes real estate development and the rental of retail, commercial and live theater assets. The Company is based in Culver City, California. RENEE'S GARDEN: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renee's Garden LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Renee's Garden LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03028 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Renee's Garden -- https://www.reneesgarden.com/ -- offers the best heirloom & gourmet vegetable, flower & herb seeds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Fontaine FDCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JERRY FONTAINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-CV-06274 EAW (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Fontaine brings the purported class action asserting that Defendants Resurgent and LVNV have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"), and New York General Business Law Section 349. LVNV is a "debt buyer that acquires or claims to acquire, among other kinds of debt, charged-off credit card accounts of consumers by virtue of assignments from account originators and intermediary debt sellers." Resurgent is an affiliate of LVNV that is "involved in collecting its debts." Resurgent and LVNV are "under common ownership and management" and are both "part of the Sherman Financial Group." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants improperly engaged in collection activities against him and others similarly situated related to credit card accounts originated by Synchrony Bank. More specifically, he claims that there were "gaps in the chain of title" with respect to these accounts and that "proper notices of the assignments by assignors in the chain of title from Synchrony Bank to LVNV were not provided in accordance with New York law," such that "LVNV had no legal interest in the debts." With respect to the Plaintiff in particular, on Nov. 22, 2019, LVNV brought a complaint against him in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County, alleging that he was liable to LVNV on a credit card account originated by Synchrony Ban. LVNV alleged in the state court collection action that title to the Account had passed from Synchrony Bank to Sherman Originator III LLC, from Sherman Originator III LLC to Sherman Originator LLC, and from Sherman Originator LLC to LVNV. The Plaintiff maintains that this claimed chain of title is inaccurate and unsupported by the Bill of Sale produced by LVNV in the state court collection action. He further maintains that he received no notice of any of the claimed assignments, in violation of New York law. The credit card agreement that the Plaintiff entered into when he opened his Account contains an arbitration provision. The Plaintiff commenced the instant action on April 28, 2020. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 25, 2020. The Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint as of right on Oct. 1, 2020, and the Court accordingly denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot. The Defendants filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss on Oct. 12, 2020. The Plaintiff filed his response on Nov. 3, 2020, and the Defendants filed their reply on Nov. 10, 2020. Discussion I. Defendants' Request to Compel Arbitration A. Existence of an Arbitration Agreement Between Plaintiff and LVNV The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration, and accordingly ask the Court to issue an order compelling arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. Sections 2-4. The parties' dispute centers on whether there is an enforceable arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and LVNV2. In particular, while the Plaintiff does not dispute that he entered into a valid arbitration agreement with Synchrony Bank, he contends that there is a factual dispute as to whether Synchrony Bank's rights pursuant to that agreement were validly assigned to LVNV. Judge Wolford agrees with the Defendants that they have come forward with evidence amply demonstrating that LVNV is the valid assignee of the Plaintiff's Account and that Plaintiff has failed to produce or point to any evidence to call into question that conclusion. The Plaintiff's contentions regarding the purported transfers to RFS Holding LLC, and the Synchrony Credit Card Master Note Trust are supported only by his own allegations, and are thus insufficient to overcome the evidence presented by the Defendants in support of their motion to compel arbitration. Moreover, the Plaintiff's citation to New York state cases requiring a debt buyer to exactingly "prove a complete and unbroken chain of title to any debt it seeks to collect" is misplaced. The Defendants are not required to comply with New York's stringent standard of proof for assignees' bringing debt collection cases; instead, they are required to prove title to the Plaintiff's Account by a preponderance of the evidence. LVNV has satisfied that standard in the case, and the Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any evidence of his own establishing the existence of a genuine factual dispute. Accordingly, the Judge finds as a matter of law that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between LVNV and Plaintiff. B. Plaintiff's Claims Are Within the Scope of the Arbitration Agreement The arbitration provision at issue is broadly drafted, encompassing all "statutory, common law, and equitable claims" that "relate to" the Account, and further including claims brought against an "affiliate" of the holder of the debt. The Plaintiff has not argued that his claims, including those against LVNV's affiliate, Resurgent, are not within the scope of his agreement to arbitrate. Further, the federal statutory claims that the Plaintiff asserts are not ones that Congress intended to be nonarbitrable. On this record, the Judge easily concludes that the Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision. C. Plaintiff's Class Action Claims Must be Dismissed As Judge Wolford noted, the arbitration provision in the Plaintiff's credit card agreement also contains a class action waiver. Having found that the arbitration provision is enforceable by LVNV, the Judge is further constrained to find that the Plaintiff cannot maintain his class action claims. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff waived his right to participate in a class in court or arbitration, the Judge compels arbitration of his claims on an individual basis and dismisses his class action claims. II. Defendants' Request for Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) In the alternative, the Defendants have asked the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. However, because she has found that the Plaintiff's claims must be heard by an arbitrator, Judge Wolford holds that the Defendants' request for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is moot. III. The Proceedings are Stayed Pending Completion of Arbitration Neither party has requested a stay pending arbitration. However, the parties have also not identified any reason why dismissal is a preferable course of action. In light of the Second Circuit's expressed preference for entry of a stay under normal circumstances, the Court, in its discretion, stays the proceedings pending arbitration. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wolford grants the Defendants' pending motion to the extent that it compels arbitration on an individual basis and dismisses the Plaintiff's class action claims, but otherwise denies the Defendants' request that the action be dismissed. Instead, the matter is stayed pending further order of the Court. The parties will advise the Court within 15 days of entry of a final arbitration decision. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/cwb5ybjb from Leagle.com. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monica Quinones v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-06559-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian W. Payson entered an order: 1. granting the Parties' requests for Class Certification deadline extensions; and 2. directing the Counsel to submit a joint letter to this Court by no later than August 5, 2021 indicating their willingness to return to mediation with their selected mediator. On October 14, 2020, this Court adopted the parties' proposed Civil Case Discovery Plan, providing for the following relevant deadlines: a. All factual discovery, including depositions, shall be completed on or before May 28, 2021; b. All motions to compel discovery shall be filed by no later than July 2, 2021; c. Parties shall complete all discovery relating to experts, including depositions, by May 28, 2021, d. Motions for class certification, if any, shall be filed by no later than July 2, 2021; and e. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed by no later than 90 days after a decision is issued on any motion for class certification, if no motion for class certification is filed, any dispositive motions shall be filed by no later than July 2, 2021. A copy of the Court's letter order dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oVuc0v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone (312) 739-4200 Facsimile (312) 419-0379 ROMEO POWER: California Wage & Hour Class Suit Still Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Romeo Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the wage-and-hour putative class action suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court is still stayed. In October 2020, a wage-and-hour class action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees in California from October 2016 to present. The allegations include meal and rest period violations and various related claims. The case is currently stayed pending mediation, which was continued to July 2021. Romeo Power said, "We intend to defend ourselves against these claims and the possible range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated." Romeo Power, Inc. are creators of the world's most energy-dense battery packs. Top engineers and designers from SpaceX, Tesla, Samsung, Apple, and Amazon, started Romeo Power Technology in 2015 with the belief that safe and reliable energy is crucial to the advancement of human health and economic development. The company is based in Vernon, California. ROMEO POWER: Faces Toner Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------- Romeo Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces a class action suit initiated by Victor J. Toner. On May 6, 2021, plaintiff Victor J. Toner filed a class action complaint against Romeo, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The allegations in the Toner Complaint are substantially similar to the allegations in the Nichols complaint. The relief sought includes money damages, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Romeo said, "We intend to defend ourselves against these claims and the possible range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated." Romeo Power, Inc. are creators of the world's most energy-dense battery packs. Top engineers and designers from SpaceX, Tesla, Samsung, Apple, and Amazon, started Romeo Power Technology in 2015 with the belief that safe and reliable energy is crucial to the advancement of human health and economic development. The company is based in Vernon, California. ROMEO POWER: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set for July 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Romeo Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the hearing on motions for appointment of lead plaintiff in the class action suit intiated by Travis Nichols, is scheduled on July 15, 2021. On April 16, 2021, plaintiff Travis Nichols filed a class action complaint against Romeo, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Nichols Complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the supply of battery cells, which are components of Romeo's products, and the Company's ability to meet customer demand and achieve its revenue forecast for 2021. The relief sought includes money damages, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. The court has scheduled a hearing for July 15, 2021 to consider motions for lead plaintiff appointment. Romeo said, "We intend to defend ourselves against these claims and the possible range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated." Romeo Power, Inc. are creators of the world's most energy-dense battery packs. Top engineers and designers from SpaceX, Tesla, Samsung, Apple, and Amazon, started Romeo Power Technology in 2015 with the belief that safe and reliable energy is crucial to the advancement of human health and economic development. The company is based in Vernon, California. ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Seeks to Certify Class of Deliver Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Branning, et al., On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. Romeo's Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action, and designating Plaintiff Branning as the representative of the following class: "All current and former delivery drivers employed by the Defendants Spackler, Smails, and Noonan Pizza Company; The Summer of George Pizza Company, LLC; DMTB Pizza Company; I Don't Always Eat Pizza Company; Rob Braun; Thomas Fiala; John O'Keefe; David Leissinger; The Estate of Michael Hudson; and Robert Gligora in the State of Ohio between the date three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter ("Spackler Rule 23 Class");" 2. appointing Biller & Kimble, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); and 3. permitting the Plaintifffs to send notice of this lawsuit to putative class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2). 4. authorizing them to send notice of the pendency of this action to his similarly-situated co-workers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fIgIko at no extra charge.[CC] The Counsel for Plaintiffs and putative class, are: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Nathan B. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com RT INC: Faces Camp Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- TAMMIE CAMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RT, INC., and JESSIE RUTH CULLUM, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00463-JM (E.D. Ark., May 27, 2021) brings this collection action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as Office Manager from June 2011 until February 2021, and as a Manager and Assistant Manager from February 2021 until May 2021. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as hourly employee and non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. However, despite regularly working more than 40 hours in workweek, the Defendant failed to properly pay their overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per week because the Defendants failed to include their nondiscretionary bonuses in their regular rats when calculating their overtime pay. In addition, the Defendant failed to maintain and keep records of the hours worked by its employees, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 hours in any week, as well as liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. RT, Inc. provides in-home caregiving services throughout Arkansas. Jessie Ruth Cullum is a principal, director, officer, and/or owner of RT. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com RUMPKE TRANS: Bid to Limit Certification Discovery Junked --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Gambrell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Rumpke Transportation Company LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00801-MR (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order that the Defendant's Motion to Conduct Limited Pre-Conditional Certification Discovery is denied to the extent that it seeks to conduct limited pre-conditional certification discovery; and granted to the extend it seeks an enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification. The Defendants shall have 21 days from entry of this Order to respond to Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification says the Court. On December 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed its First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio Law. In this complaint, the Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to pay employees overtime wages. The FLSA claim is brought as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has a companywide policy of implementing a meal break deduction for its hourly, non-exempt welders' daily hours worked for meal breaks that are either never taken or are interrupted by substantive work duties. On December 29, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a "Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)." The Plaintiff asks this Court to conditionally certify the class of: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt welders of Defendant who were scheduled to work 40 or more hours in any workweek during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case." Rumpke operates as a environmentally friendly waste disposal solutions and recycling options. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34kfB5f at no extra charge.[CC] RYAN ROHLF: Sundermann Must Supplement Class Cert. Bid by June 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL SUNDERMANN v. RYAN ROHLF, Case No. 4:19-cv-00140-RP-SHL (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Pratt entered an order directing the Plaintiff to supplement his Motion to Certify Class on or before June 2, 2021, in light of the allegations contained within the Plaintiff's Second amended complaint. The Defendant shall have 14 days in which to respond to Plaintiff's supplemental filing. The Court said, "Before the Court are Plaintiff Carl Sundermann's Motion to Certify Class and Motion to Appoint Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. ECF No. 67. The Defendant Ryan Rohlf has filed a Notice of Non-Resistance to Plaintiff's Motions. In the Court's Order denying Plaintiff's Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision, the Court permitted Plaintiff to replead Count Two, which alleged a violation of the do-not-call provisions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Thereafter, on March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint repleading Count Two. ECF No. 71. In his Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff tentatively defines a second class based on Count Two." A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uJLFdD at no extra charge.[CC] SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order on Garth Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WENDALL C. GARTH, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00602-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Philip Calabrese entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: 1. Under Local Rule 16.2, the case is assigned to the standard track. 2. Under Local Rule 16.4, the case was not referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution at this time. 3. Currently, the parties do not consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). 4. Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16.1, the schedule for this matter will proceed as follows: -- Initial disclosures: May 27, 2021 -- Motions to amend pleading or Aug. 13, 2021 add additional parties: -- Motions directed to pleadings: Nov. 14, 2021 -- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Class Feb. 3, 2022 Certification expert and Deadline to move for Class Certification: -- Disclosure of Defendant's Class March 15, 2022 Certification expert and Deadline to Oppose Class Certification: -- Deadline to Reply in support of May 6, 2022 class certification and exchange expert rebuttal reports: -- Fact discovery cutoff: June 14, 2021 5. The next status conference is scheduled for Monday, February 28, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. and will be held by phone unless the parties request the conference be held in person or over Zoom. 6. The Parties agreed to abide by the standard protective order in Appendix L to the Local Rules. The Court will enter a protective order by separate entry. 7. The Parties agreed to abide by Appendix K to the Local Rules regarding discovery of ESI. 8. The Parties agree an order under Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is appropriate. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wGU1E5 at no extra charge.[CC] SHEF INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shef, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Shef, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04749 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shef -- https://shef.com/ -- is an operator of an online food marketplace designed to offer home-cooked dishes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Cullen Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DON CULLEN and ELLEN ROSS, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH, LLC and SHUTTERFLY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06040-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, entered an order: a. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Cullen's claims against Lifetouch for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2); b. denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; and c. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part. The Plaintiffs filed the action on Aug. 27, 2020. Shutterfly is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in California. In 2018, Shutterfly acquired Lifetouch, a Minnesota limited liability company that is headquartered in Minnesota. Lifetouch is a professional photography company that has been taking and selling school photographs for over 80 years. Without distinguishing between Shutterfly and Lifetouch, the Plaintiffs allege that "Defendants provide school picture services twice per year, in the fall and in the spring. In the fall, parents may select a desired photo package before photos are taken, or may elect not to have their child's portrait taken. In the spring, pursuant to their Family Approval Program, the Defendants take unsolicited school pictures and send them home with the children. Parents are instructed to review the photographs and pay for any photos they choose to keep or return the photos to the school to presumably be destroyed within days. Parents are not given the opportunity to request that their child's picture not be taken or to opt out of receiving the spring photos. Parents feel pressure to pay for these unsolicited photographs or return them to the school to an unknown fate. Despite the unsolicited nature of the photographs, the Defendants maintain that any photographs that are not returned must be paid for and send parents reminders for payment. The Plaintiffs claim that "the purported right of Defendants to request payment for or return of the unsolicited photos is invalid and unenforceable under, inter alia, California law." According to them, the unsolicited photo packages that are sent home are free gifts, and the recipients are not obligated to pay for them or return them. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' conduct gives rise to the following claims: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq.; (3) violation of California's false advertising law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; (4) common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; (5) violation of California's unfair competition law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (6) violation of Cal. Civil Code Section 1584.5; and (7) violation of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, 39 U.S.C. Section 3009. The Plaintiffs seek to litigate these claims on behalf of a nationwide class and several subclasses: A nationwide Class of individuals who received unsolicited Family Approval Program photo packages from the Defendants between Aug. 25, 2016 and the date of preliminary approval; a Purchaser Subclass of Class Members who purchased any Family Approval photo packages; a California Subclass of Class members who reside in the state of California; and a California Purchase Sub-Subclass of Purchaser Subclass Members who reside in the state of California. The Defendants move to dismiss Cullen's claim against Lifetouch for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' individual claims, and to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Discussion I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction The Defendants contend that Cullen cannot establish either general or specific personal jurisdiction over Lifetouch, a Minnesota company. General personal jurisdiction exists when the Defendant's contacts "are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." They argue that Lifetouch does not have sufficient contacts with California to render it "at home" in California as required for exercise of general personal jurisdiction. They also argue that Cullen's claims against Lifetouch do not arise from Lifetouch's contacts with California. The Defendants point out that Cullen is a Texas resident, and that his claims arise from unsolicited Family Approval Program photos taken at his child's Texas elementary school and sent to his Texas home. Mr. Cullen does not attempt to establish general personal jurisdiction over Lifetouch, but he asserts that Lifetouch's contacts with California give rise to specific personal jurisdiction with respect to his claims. Judge Freeman concludes that Cullen has failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand Lifetouch's motion to dismiss. This conclusion is consistent with the Court's ruling in Allen v. Shutterfly, Inc., No. 20-CV-02448-BLF, 2020 WL 5517170 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020). In Allen, a Kansas resident filed a putative class action asserting consumer claims arising out of Lifetouch's Family Approval Program. The Court found that the Kansas plaintiff's claims against Minnesota-based Lifetouch did not give rise to personal jurisdiction in California. Based on the foregoing, the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss Cullen's claims against Lifetouch for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. In addition, the sole federal claim in the case is subject to dismissal without leave to amend. Under the circumstances, the Judge declines to exercise the Court's pendent personal jurisdiction over non-resident Cullen's claims against non-resident Lifetouch. Finally, in the event that the Court grants the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(2) motion, the Plaintiffs assert that "Discovery May Be Warranted." Their argument on this point consists of a single sentence: "Plaintiff believes that discovery could demonstrate, among other things, that Lifetouch relies on Shutterfly in California to execute the Family Approval Program." The Plaintiffs have not explained what specific discovery they wish to take or how discovery could establish personal jurisdiction over Cullen's claims against Lifetouch. Accordingly, their request for jurisdictional discovery is denied. II. Motion to Compel Arbitration The Defendants move to compel arbitration as to the individual claims of Plaintiffs Cullen and Ross. They rely on an arbitration clause contained in the 2020 terms of use ("TOU") located on Lifetouch's website. In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that they never visited Lifetouch's website, let alone agreed to binding arbitration. They also argue that even if there were an agreement to arbitrate, Lifetouch is precluded from enforcing such an agreement. With respect to Cullen's claims, Judge Freeman concludes that Cullen is not the type of non-signatory contemplated by the equitable estoppel rule, and that the complaint's reliance on choice-of-law and forum selection provisions chosen unilaterally by Lifetouch did not confer a direct benefit on Cullen sufficient to render the arbitration provision applicable to him under an equitable estoppel theory. Hence, the motion to compel arbitration is denied as to Cullen. With respect to Ross' claims, as stated at the hearing, Judge Freeman has good vision and was hard-pressed to identify, let alone read, the language in question on the exhibit provided by the Defendants. The subject language is in tiny print, that appears to be light gray in color, and there is no header or other indicator that would notify an individual of important contractual terms. It may be that the actual envelopes delivered to Ross were larger, but the Judge is limited to evaluation of the evidence provided by the Defendants. The Defendants have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an arbitration agreement was formed. The Judge finds that the Defendants have failed to meet that burden. In addition to their argument based on the paper envelopes, the Defendants make the same equitable estoppel argument with respect to Cullen. The Judge finds that argument unpersuasive for the same reasons. Hence, the motion to compel arbitration is also denied as to Ross. III. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim The Defendants seek dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs claims for failure to state a claim. As Judge Freeman indicated at the hearing, it is her view that the complaint is in relatively good shape, with a few notable exceptions. First, the complaint improperly lumps the Defendants together. This manner of pleading obfuscates what roles each Defendant played in the alleged harm. All claims in the complaint are subject to dismissal on this basis. Second, the Plaintiffs assert a single federal claim under the Postal Reorganization Act, which prohibits "the mailing of unordered merchandise." The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claim is subject to dismissal because they have not alleged that the photo packages were mailed. In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that the Act does not require direct mailing, and that it extends to the facts alleged here, where goods were shipped using "deputized child couriers." The Plaintiffs have not cited any authority supporting their position. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted as to Claim 7. Third, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Cullen and any other non-resident class members may sue in California under California law. In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that this issue is not appropriate for disposition at this early stage of the case. Judge Freeman agrees. Fourth, the Defendants argue that Claim 6, asserted under California Civil Code Section 1584.5, fails because the photo packages were not unsolicited as to Ross and because neither Plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief under the statute. As the Plaintiffs point out in opposition, it does not appear on the face of the complaint that Ross solicited the photo packages. Moreover, nothing in the complaint precludes the Plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief. The Defendants' assertion that the Family Approval Program has been discontinued goes beyond the scope of what the Court may consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and therefore does not provide a basis for dismissal of Claim 6. Fifth, the Defendants contend that dismissal is warranted with respect to Claim 2 for violation of the CLRA, Claim 3 for violation of the FAL, Claim 4 for fraud, and Claim 5 for violation of the UCL. They contend that the alleged misrepresentations and omissions underlying these claims have been alleged in only generic terms that are insufficient to meet the applicable pleading standards. Judge Freeman agrees that these claims are inadequately alleged because she cannot discern from the pleading what allegedly fraudulent conduct is attributable to each Defendant. Sixth, the Defendants seek dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief on the basis that they have not alleged facts showing that legal remedies are inadequate. As Judge Freeman advised the parties at the hearing, she views that issue as premature and declines to dismiss the claims for equitable relief at this stage of the proceedings. Even if she otherwise were inclined to entertain the issue at the pleading stage based on Elgindy v. AGA Serv. Co., No. 20-CV-06304-JST, 2021 WL 1176535 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) and other cases in which district courts have performed that analysis at the motion to dismiss stage, she would not do so at this time given that the Plaintiffs must amend to make clear each Defendant's role in the alleged wrongdoing. Finally, Judge Freeman finds that the record does not reflect undue delay by the Plaintiffs or bad faith. There has been no failure to cure deficiencies, as the present motion addresses the Plaintiffs' original complaint. The case is at an early stage, so amendment would not unduly prejudice the Defendants. Finally, while the Plaintiffs have not given any indication that they could amend Claim 7, they may well be able to amend to cure the other deficiencies identified. Accordingly, leave to amend will be granted as to all claims except Claim 7. Conclusion All claims are dismissed with leave to amend except Claim 7 for violation of the Postal Reorganization Act, which is dismissed without leave to amend. Accordingly, Judge Freeman (i) granted the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss Cullen's claims against Lifetouch; (ii) denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; and (iii) granted with leave to amend the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to all claims except Claim 7 for violation of the Postal Reorganization Act, as to which the motion is granted without leave to amend. The Plaintiffs will file any amended complaint by June 9, 2021. The Order terminates ECF 19, 20, and 21. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4cmskc6t from Leagle.com. SILVER FERN: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silver Fern Farms USA LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Silver Fern Farms USA LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04750 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Silver Fern Farms -- https://www.silverfernfarms.com/us/ -- markets and exports meat products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com SIMM ASSOCIATES: Sazonoff Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simm Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Dayle Sazonoff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Simm Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00773-UNA (D. Del., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. SIMM Associates -- https://www.simmassociates.com/ -- are Accounts Receivable Management Specialists working with creditors to recover outstanding consumer credit accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vivian A. Houghton, Esq. 800 N. West Street, 2nd Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 658-0518 Email: Vivianhoughton@comcast.net SIRIUS XM: Sawyer Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 25, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA SAWYER, et al., v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00176-RA-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an initial case management order: -- Automatic Disclosures To the extent they have not done so already, the parties shall exchange the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) no later than May 18, 2021. -- Written Discovery The parties shall serve their initial requests for production of documents and any initial interrogatories (in compliance with Local Civ. Rule 33.3(a)) no later than May 21, 2021. -- Depositions and Additional Fact Discovery. All remaining fact discovery, including depositions, shall be completed no later than December 16, 2021. -- Expert Discovery Disclosure of expert evidence, including the identities and written reports of experts, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), (B), or (C), shall be made no later than December 21, 2021 for plaintiffs and no later than January 20, 2022 for defendant. -- Close of Discovery All discovery shall be completed no later than February 23, 2022. -- Motion for Class Certification The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification no later than February 25, 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SBX2Xt at no extra charge.[CC] SNAP FINANCE: Extension to File Reply for Class Cert. Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI WESLEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SNAP FINANCE, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00148-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the respective deadlines to file a reply in support of her motion for class certification, and to file a response to the Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of her expert, by two weeks due to Plaintiff's counsel's scheduling conflicts, planned absences and vacations, and work related to other matters. SNAP offers financing for homeowners through an extensive dealer network across Canada. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c2lS9E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 803-1578 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Jason E. Greene, Esq. Jared D. Scott, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C. 50 West Broadway, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 E-mail: jgreene@aklawfirm.com jscott@aklawfirm.com - and - Curtis R. Hussey, Esq. HUSSEY LAW FIRM, LLC 82 Plantation Pointe Road No. 288 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 401-4882 E-mail: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Melanie J. Vartabedian, Esq. Ballard Spahr LLP One Utah Center 201 South Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2221 Telephone: (801) 531-3000 Facsimile: (801) 531-3001 E-mail: vartabedianm@ballardspahr.com - and - Jenny N. Perkins, Esq. Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: (215) 665-8500 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 E-mail: perkinsj@ballardspahr.com bryce@ballardspahr.com SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Henderson --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TYRONE HENDERSON, SR., et al., Plaintiffs v. THE SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-294-HEH (E.D. Va.), Judge Henry E. Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, grants the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on Oct. 30, 2020, alleging that The Source for Public Data, L.P., Shadowsoft, Inc., Harlington-Straker Studio, Inc., and Dale Bruce Stringfellow, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by including inaccurate criminal information on background check reports Defendants produced. The Defendants operate a website, publicdata.com, that allows customers to search through various databases available via the site. They can pull this information into a report. Plaintiffs Tyrone Henderson, George O. Harrison, Jr., and Robert McBride assert that the Defendants purchase, collect, and assemble public record information into reports, which employers then buy from Defendants via their website. Generally, the Defendants obtain their public records from vendors, state agencies, and courthouses. The Defendants purportedly "strip out or suppress all identifying information relating to any criminal charges." After these alterations, the Defendants then use "their own internally created summaries of the charges." As the Defendants' customers "ask a general question" such as if "there are any criminal convictions anywhere that match this applicant," the Plaintiffs aver that the "Defendants affirmatively sort, manipulate and infer information to adapt data results to the requests received." In sum, the Plaintiffs maintain that the "Defendants rewrite the court records into their own original entries into the report." Each Plaintiff alleges various inaccuracies on the Defendants' reports as well as other FCRA violations. They bring a class action lawsuit, alleging that the Defendants provided numerous reports for individuals in Virginia that contained false or inaccurate information. The Plaintiffs state three claims jointly, alleging violations of Sections 1681g; 1681k(a); 1681b(b)(1). McBride brings one claim individually for a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b). The matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In support of their Motion, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims are precluded under Section 230. They allege that they have satisfied the elements of Section 230 immunity because they are an interactive computer service and the Plaintiffs treat them as the publisher of a third-party's content. Moreover, they argue that because Section 230 specifically lists several exemptions and FCRA is not among them, Section 230 applies. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that Defendants do not satisfy the requirements for Section 230 immunity and that the immunity should not apply to the FCRA. Discussion A. The Documents Attached to Defendants' Motion Are Not Incorporated by Reference into the Complaint The Defendants attached several documents to their Motion with an affidavit supporting authenticity: first, an example of data Defendants receive from the Maryland Court system, and second, the records A+ Student Staffing viewed after a search on Defendants' website on Aug. 15, 2016. They allege that these documents are incorporated by reference into the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs object to this evidence, claiming it is not authentic and hearsay pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Judge Hudson cannot consider either document attached to the Motion as neither is incorporated by reference into the Second Amended Complaint. He says, for a document to be incorporated by reference into a complaint, there must be explicit language referring to the documents. Although the Second Amended Complaint makes several general references as to how the Defendants obtain criminal history information and references to sources of public records, and other agencies from which the Defendants have obtained records, there is no specific reference to any Maryland court database or system. Furthermore, there is a generic discussion regarding McBride's prior attempt to obtain employment as a surveyor, a background check report his potential employer utilized, and mention of some information in the report, but there is no reference that the employer is A+ Student Staffing nor that the report at issue was generated on Aug. 16, 2016. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not relied on these documents for their truthfulness, and indeed, object to validity of these documents. Therefore, the Judge finds that these documents are not incorporated by reference. B. Section 230 Applies to Defendants The Plaintiffs' sole support for their argument that Section 230 generally cannot apply to the FCRA is an unpublished case from the Central District of California -- Liberi v. Taitz, No. SACV 11-0485, 2011 WL 13315691 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011). After finding the plaintiffs' claims barred under the FCRA and the California equivalent, the Liberi court further reasoned that the claims would also be precluded by Section 230 immunity. The Plaintiffs argue that this case signifies that Section 230 and the FCRA are mutually exclusive because the Liberi court analyzed Section 230 separately from the FCRA. Judge Hudson finds the Plaintiffs' argument, based upon inferences and assumptions from dicta in an unpublished Central District of California case, unpersuasive, particularly when the language of the statute and Fourth Circuit precedent are clear. He says, it is evident that, although Section 230 can apply to FCRA claims, the Court must consider whether the Defendants are entitled to immunity under Section 230. There are three requirements to successfully assert Section 230 immunity: (1) a defendant is an interactive computer service; (2) the content is created by an information content provider; and (3) the defendant is alleged to be the creator of the content. Based on the facts at hand, the Judge holds that the Defendants have satisfied all three elements. First, the Defendants meet the definition of an interactive computer service. Second, the Defendants are not information content providers as they do not produce the content of the reports at issue in the litigation. Finally, although the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants manipulate and sort the content in a background check report, there no explicit allegation that Defendants materially contribute to or create the content themselves. Conclusion In sum, Judge Hudson finds that Section 230 immunity can apply to FCRA claims and the Defendants qualify for the immunity. Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted. An appropriate Order will accompany the Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtrcfuh6 from Leagle.com. SPARK NETWORKS: Cyber Security Related Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks SE said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class action suit related to the 2020 security incident disclosed by Zoosk, has been stayed. On July 22, 2020, a putative class action was filed against Spark Networks SE and Zoosk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by individuals claiming to be Zoosk users whose information was affected by the 2020 security incident disclosed by Zoosk. The complaint, as subsequently amended, asserts that by reason of the Zoosk security incident Spark and Zoosk violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and other statutory and common-law obligations. Based on these assertions, the complaint seeks statutory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their statutory damage claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). On January 30, 2021, the district court granted in part, and denied in part, Zoosk's motion to dismiss the remainder of the complaint for failure to state a claim and held in abeyance the Company's motion to dismiss itself on jurisdictional grounds and for failure to state a claim. The court granted plaintiffs limited jurisdictional discovery as to the Company and has allowed a common-law claim to go forward as to Zoosk. Zoosk has answered the portion of the complaint that asserts the one remaining common-law claim by denying its material allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. The case is currently stayed at least through June 12, 2021 pending resolution of pandemic-related challenges in completing the jurisdictional discovery. Assuming the stay is lifted on June 12, the case is scheduled for trial commencing September 12, 2022. Separately, a group of lawyers that is different from those who filed the putative class action filed 77 separate arbitration demands against Zoosk in the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. ("JAMS") arbitration forum. Zoosk has objected that neither JAMS nor any arbitrator appointed by JAMS has authority to arbitrate any of these claims. JAMS has nonetheless determined to commence arbitration proceedings in regard to one of the 77 arbitration claims filed to date and has initiated the process of appointing an arbitrator for that one claim. Spark Networks SE operates online dating sites and mobile applications. It focuses on catering professionals and highly-educated singles with serious relationship intentions in North America and other international markets. The company operates its dating platforms under the EliteSingles, SilverSingles, JDate, Christian Mingle, eDarling, JSwipe, and Attractive World brands. The company is headquartered in Berlin, Germany. SPECTRANETICS CORP: Second Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELLY LOUANGAMATH v. THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-03634-JST (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's unopposed second motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Judge Tigar says that although Plaintiff has remedied some of the defects identified in the Court’s prior order denying approval, others remain. By attempting to settle her own individual claim in exchange for an incentive award, the Plaintiff creates a potential conflict between herself and the putative class. The Court will not approve a settlement that bestows a service award in exchange for a release. The Court also notes again that, absent compelling circumstances, it is unlikely to look favorably on an award greater than $5,000. In this putative class action, the Plaintiff Louangamath brings wage and hour claims against Defendant The Spectranetics Corporation, a medical device manufacturer headquartered in Colorado and incorporated in Delaware. Claims are brought on behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees who worked at the Defendant's California facilities at any time between April 20, 2014 and the date that final judgment is entered in this action. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, compensate employees for all hours worked at the correct rate of pay, reimburse employees for expenses, and provide accurate written wage statements. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i38tC6 at no extra charge.[CC] SPRINGFIELD, MA: Asks Court to Amend May 5, 2021 Order in O'Neill ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURA O'NEILL, as administrator Of the Estate of Madelyn E. Linsenmeir, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MOISES ZANAZANIAN, REMINGTON MCNABB, SHEILA RODRIGUEZ, HAMPDEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, And JOHN/JANE DOES NOS. 1-5, Case No. 3:20-cv-30036-MGM (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order amending the May 5, 2021 order by certifying that so much of the order that requires the case against the City of Springfield to be bifurcated and tried before the remaining issues is appropriate for interlocutory review under section 1292(b). Specifically, the Defendants ask that the Court certify that the designated section of the order involves a controlling question of law, which appears to be a matter of first impression, and as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Springfield is a city in western Massachusetts. Beside the Connecticut River, Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame commemorates the sport in a striking building. Collections at the Springfield Museums include American paintings and sculpture, scientific exhibits and Asian art. A copy of the Court's order the Defendants' motion dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wG0vTE at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorneys of the Defendants City of Springfield, Moises Zanazanian, Remington McNabb and Sheila Rodriguez, By their attorneys, are: Lisa C. DeSousa, Esq. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD LAW DEPARTMENT 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 787-6085 Facsimile: (413) 787-6173 E-mail: ldesousa@springfieldcityhall.com - and - Kevin B. Coyle, Esq. 1299 Page Boulevard Springfield, MA 01104 Telephone: (413) 787-1524 E-mail: attycoyle@aol.com - and - John K. Vigliotti, Esq. REARDON, JOYCE & AKERSON, P.C. 4 Lancaster Terrace Worcester, MA 01609 Telephone: (508)754-7285 Facsimile: (508) 754-7220 E-mail: jvigliotti@rja-law.com SQUARE A CONSTRUCTION: Giron Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN PABLO GIRON, v. SQUARE A CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00626-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting conditional certification and court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. requiring the Defendant Square A to provide to Plaintiff within 14 days of the Court's Order on this motion, the full names, date(s) of employment, job title(s), last known addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of birth of all putative collective action members to allow Plaintiff to distribute the approved notice to those putative members of the statutory classes; and 3. approving the proposed Notice of Collective Action lawsuit and the proposed Consent to Become Party Plaintiff and approve a 60 day opt-in period for potential Plaintiffs to submit the Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form. Square A is a residential and light commercial masonry company, based in Charlotte North Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wHQYeI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathryn F. Abernethy, Esq. THE NOBLE LAW FIRM, PLLC 43933) 141 Providence Road, Suite 210 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Telephone: (919) 251-6008 Facsimile: (919) 869-2079 E-mail: kabernethy@thenoblelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Harman, Esq. HARMAN LAW PLLC 16507-B Northcross Dr., Huntersville, NC 28078 Office: (704) 885-5550 Facsimile: (704) 885-5551 E-mail: michael@harmanlawnc.com SYMETRA LIFE: Fails to Pay Claims Examiners' OT, Blier Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA BLIER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00692 (D. Wash., May 26, 2021) brings this class and collective complaint against the Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from February 16, 2016 to December 18, 2018 as a non-managerial employee in the position of Claims Examiner/Claims Examination Employee to process disability benefits claims within contractual time frames. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated current and former Claims Examiners routinely work over 40 hours per week throughout their employment with the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for their lawfully earned overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for al hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Symetra Life Insurance Company is a claims administrator that administers and processes disability benefits claims on behalf of its customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Hanley, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 810 Third Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 622-8000 E-mail: hanley@sgb-law.com - and – Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Charles R. Ash, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Tel: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com - and – Jack Siegel, Esq. Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: (214) 790-4454 E-mail: stacy@siegellawgroup.biz jack@siegellawgroup.biz - and – Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (281) 572-0727 E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Chetwood et al., Seeks $2MM Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA CHETWOOD, SANDRA CASTELLON-GONZALEZ, PAUL ROSE, JAIRO MARQUEZ, SAMANTHA STEPHENS, RICHARD NEDBALEK, AND WHITE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00458-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily approving the Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) and section 216(b) 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. preliminarily certifying the proposed settlement class; 3. approving the proposed class notice and forms; 4. setting the deadlines for filing elections not to participate and objections to the Settlement; and 5. scheduling a final approval hearing. This is an FLSA/state law wage-and-hour hybrid collective/class action. The Plaintiffs and approximately 6,800 putative class members are hourly Customer Service Representatives employed by T-Mobile at its call centers throughout the country. In this unopposed Motion, the Plaintiffs request preliminary approval of a $2,000,000 collective/class action settlement. The Defendant does not oppose this Motion. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wKfZpO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. TARGET CORPORATION: Bid for Class Certification Continued to June 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aisha Bowen, et al. v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02587-JGB-MRW (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order: 1. granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file a Sur- Reply; 2. continuing the Motion for Class Certification to June 7, 2021; On January 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On March 8, 2021, Defendant opposed. The Plaintiffs replied on April 19, 2021. On April 21, 2021, Defendant filed the Motion, which seeks to strike the Steiner and Cohen Declarations, or, in the alternative, requests leave to file a Sur-Reply. The Defendant argues, correctly, that the Steiner and Cohen Declarations are new, non- rebuttal evidence that Plaintiffs could have presented with their moving papers. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. The eighth-largest retailer in the United States. A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bTUZos at no extra charge.[CC] TD AMERITRADE: Bartle Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Annette Mackey Bartle, on behalf of herself and other members of the putative class, v. TD Ameritrade Holdings Corp., Case No. 4:20-cv-166 (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting her motion for class certification; 2. appointing Annette Mackey Bartle as the Class Representative; and 3. appointing The Law Office of Jared A. Rose as Class Counsel. Ms. Bartle claims for class action treatment pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff had a brokerage account with Scottrade, and Scottrade's contract with the Plaintiff promised that if Scottrade "pledged, repledged, hypothecated or re-hypothecated" her securities, any losses resulting from those activities would not accrue to her account. Some of Plaintiff's securities were "pledged, repledged, hypothecated or re-hypothecated" by Scottrade, and as a result, she received substitute payments for certain securities instead of qualified dividends, causing losses to accrue in her account. Scottrade violated this same contractual provision for thousands of other customers as well, causing losses to accrue in their accounts in the same manner, making the case well suited to class treatment. TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of financial assets. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2R8mGmo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared A. Rose, Esq . THE LAW OFFICE OF JARED A. ROSE 919 West 47th Street Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816.221.4335 Facsimile: 816.873.5406 E-mail: jared@roselawkc.com TERRA TECH: Bid to Dismiss Stanley Putative Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Terra Tech Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the putative nationwide class action suit entitled, Stanley, et al. v Terra Tech Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 8:21-cv00022, is pending. On January 6, 2021, a putative, nationwide class action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), captioned as Stanley, et al. v Terra Tech Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 8:21-cv00022, was filed against Terra Tech and MediFarm LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the TCPA Action, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the TCPA by sending text messages to them and other persons using an automated telephone dialing system without consent. Plaintiffs sought on behalf of themselves and other purportedly similarly situated-persons, statutory damages and an unspecified amount of actual damages for each alleged violation, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 5, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the TCPA Action in its entirety. Terra Tech Corp. operates as a vertically integrated cannabis-focused agriculture company. The Company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. THERMO TECH: Bid for FLSA Conditional Class Certification Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the Class, v. THERMO TECH MECHANICAL, INC., GOWKARRAN BUDHU, and SHANTI BUDHU, Case No. 1:20-cv-09113-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act collective and for court facilitation of notice. Thermo Tech specializes in sales, installation and maintenance of a wide range of heating and air conditioning equipment. A copy of the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wIXWQS at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorney for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, are: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 THESAN USA: Zhejiang Files Amended Bid for Default Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZHEJIANG INKO SOLAR CO., LTD., v. THESAN USA CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-24346-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a default judgment against defendant Thesan USA. Zhejiang is a solar module manufacturer. Thesan USA engages in the design and implementation of technological solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fvT6k3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Mazzola, Esq. MAZZOLA LINDSTROM, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (646) 250-6666 E-mail: jean-claude@mazzolalindstrom.com TOGETHER CREDIT: Settlement Deal in Chambers Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON CHAMBERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TOGETHER CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:19-cv-00842-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P. McGlynn entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement. Judge McGlynn says that the action and all released claims asserted in it are dismissed with prejudice. No other attorney fees or costs to any of the Parties will be awarded other than as provided for in the Settlement Agreement. The Settling Parties are directed to take the necessary steps to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement provides, in exchange for a release of the Defendant, for Defendant to pay $525,000 into a Settlement Fund for the benefit of the Class. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c4ji3g at no extra charge.[CC] U.S. BANCORP: Pension Plan Beneficiaries Class Cert. Bid Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Thorne, Sonja Lindley, Pamela Kaberline, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. Bancorp, the Employee Benefits Committee, John/Jane Does 1-5, Case No. 0:18-cv-03405-PAM-KMM (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to certify class of: "all participants and beneficiaries of the Bank Pension Plan, who began receiving pension benefits on or after December 14, 2012, and whose monthly benefits were reduced by an [ECF] prescribed in Part B of the Plan under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or Rule 23(b)(2)." The Court said, "Because some class members were not injured, the class is not similarly situated such that inconsistent adjudications are a concern. Further, putative class members may not opt out of a such a class, which is problematic because some of those class members were not injured in the first instance. The Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is suitable. The Plaintiffs alternatively seek to certify their class under Rule 23(b)(2). 2 A Rule 23(b)(2) class is appropriate when a defendant has "acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." "The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted -- the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them." Again, because Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that all class members receive benefits that violate ERISA, the requested relief would not apply to the entire class. The case involves participants in the U.S. Bank Pension Plan who elected to receive their benefits as an annuity before reaching the Plan’s anticipated retirement age of 65. Beginning in 2002, Plaintiffs accrued retirement benefits under the Plan's "Final Average Pay Formula." Although the Plan anticipates a retirement age of 65, those who receive benefits under the Final Average Pay Formula can retire as early as age 55. When a participant elects to collect their retirement benefits before age 65, known the "Early Commencement Factor" ("ECF"), the Plan’s terms require a reduction of their monthly benefit, expressed as a percentage of the normal benefit that the participant would have received had they retired at 65. The Plaintiffs contend that the ECFs result in benefits that are not actuarially equivalent to the retirement benefit they would have received at age 65, in violation of the Early Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Simply put, the Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are paying retirees who retire before the age of 65 an insufficient percentage of their annuity benefit based on unreasonable actuarial calculations. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that 3,344 individuals had their early retirement in Part B of the Plan reduced by the ECFs. Ultimately, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of a "retroactive Plan Amendment," which would provide class members the greater of either an actuarily equivalent benefit to their age-65 ECF or their current benefit. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fWV4ZS at no extra charge.[CC] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Irving Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IRVING FIREMEN'S RELIEF & RETIREMENT FUND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; TRAVIS KALANICK, Defendants-Appellees, MORGAN STANLEY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC.; NEW RIDERS LP, Intervenors, Case No. 19-16667 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order dismissing the operative complaint for failure to state a claim. The case concerns allegations of securities fraud against Uber, a technology startup known for its ridesharing application, and Travis Kalanick, cofounder and former CEO of Uber. After Uber's founding in 2009, its valuation soared, with some investors assigning a valuation as high as $68 billion by mid-2016. Between June 2014 and May 2016, Kalanick and Uber completed four preferred stock offerings, raising more than $10 billion in additional capital through limited partnerships and other entities. Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund, a retirement fund for firefighters based in Irving, Texas, acquired Uber securities through one of these offerings on Feb. 16, 2016. Throughout 2017, several alleged corporate scandals surfaced, and by early 2018, investors estimated a nearly 30% decline in Uber's valuation. Irving filed a putative class action against Uber and Kalanick alleging one claim of securities fraud under California Corporations Code sections 25400(d) and 25500. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Uber and Kalanick made false and misleading statements and omissions about Uber and its operations to induce the purchase of billions of dollars of Uber securities. These statements and omissions were allegedly disseminated "through information in the offering memoranda and by making numerous public statements." Uber and Kalanick allegedly misled investors by concealing material risks to their business, including illegal business practices, which allegedly allowed them to market and sell Uber securities at inflated prices. The SAC asserts that when these business practices came to light, Uber's valuation declined, reducing the value of Irving's -- and other class members' -- securities and their actual and anticipated investment returns by billions of dollars. The SAC divides Uber's alleged misrepresentations into six categories, five of which correspond directly to each of the 2017 corporate scandals: (1) government regulation and "Greyball," (2) data security, (3) competition and the "Hell" program, (4) self-driving cars and trade secrets litigation, and (5) corporate culture and sexual harassment allegations. The sixth category concerns misrepresentations about the general risks to Uber's business from negative publicity and other events that threatened to curtail its rapid growth. The district court dismissed the SAC for failure to state a claim without granting leave to amend. It assumed that the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") applied to the case. The district court applied cases interpreting section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), noting that the parties had relied on such cases. It then concluded that Irving did not adequately allege false or misleading representations or loss causation. The appeal followed. Irving contends that the district court erred by applying the federal standard for loss causation rather than the "less-rigid state law standard." Under Irving's interpretation, it need only show that the proposed class members purchased securities that were overvalued -- or inflated -- at the time of the offerings. By Irving's account, the class members' damages arose at the moment they purchased overinflated securities, and no subsequent corrective disclosures or public price declines were needed. The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It holds that the district court did not err in looking to federal cases interpreting loss causation for claims brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The loss causation requirement applies to all claims arising under the Securities Exchange Act. Irving's cited case law in the Ninth Circuit's view does not support its argument that mere inflation is enough to show loss causation under California law. Because the parties have not pointed to California law directly addressing the issue, the Ninth Circuit turns to the federal standard for loss causation. It nonetheless emphasizes that, although federal precedent is unusually persuasive, California law still governs claims brought pursuant to sections 25400 and 25500. Irving next contends that the district court misapplied federal law when it rejected Irving's loss causation theory. Looking to the federal loss causation regime as persuasive authority, the Ninth Circuit concludes that Irving did not adequately allege loss causation. Irving's loss causation theory lumps together more than 60 alleged misstatements, which Irving associates with at least eight purported corporate scandals that took place throughout the course of a year, and Irving concludes that the disclosure of these scandals resulted in a year-long decline in Uber's valuation. But Irving's allegations fail to link Uber's reduced valuation to any particular scandal or misstatement. Irving also acknowledges that the SAC pleads a "revelation-of-the-fraud theory" but contends that it should be allowed to plead in the alternative. But Irving identifies its alternative theory as "the truism" that, under California law, losses may arise the moment investors purchase inflated securities. The Ninth Circuit has already rejected that contention. Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit concludes that Irving did not plausibly allege that Uber and Kalanick's alleged misstatements caused its damages. Accordingly, it does not reach the other elements of Irving's claim or the other arguments advanced by the parties. The judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dhx2xrw from Leagle.com. Joseph D. Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- (argued) and Luke O. Brooks -- lukeb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, California; Dennis J. Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, in San Francisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. A. Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- (argued), Andra Greene -- agreene@irell.com -- and Michael D. Harbour -- mharbour@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, in Newport Beach, California, for Defendant-Appellee Uber Technologies, Inc. Sarah M. Harris -- sharris@wc.com -- (argued), Joseph G. Petrosinelli -- jpetrosinelli@wc.com -- Eden Schiffmann -- eschiffmann@wc.com -- Harrison L. Marino, and Kimberly Broecker -- kbroecker@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Walter F. Brown and James N. Kramer, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, in San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellee Travis Kalanick. UNICO AMERICAN: Unit Faces Anchors & Whales Putative Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Unico American Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Crusader Insurance Company, a company subsidiary is facing a putative class action suit initiated by Anchors & Whales LLC et al. On March 23, 2021, ten policyholders sued Crusader Insurance Company in a putative class action entitled Anchors & Whales LLC et al. v. Crusader Insurance Company, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco (CGC-21-590999). The action alleges that Crusader wrongly denied claims for business interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related to the COVID-19 pandemic and related government orders that limited or halted operations of bars and restaurants. The action further alleges that Crusader acted unreasonably in denying the claims, and it seeks as damages the amounts allegedly due as contract benefits under the insurance policies, attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages, and other unspecified damages. The lawsuit alleges a putative class of all bars and restaurants in California that were insured by Crusader for loss of business income, who made such a claim as a result of "one or more Governmental Orders and the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the property," and whose claim was denied by Crusader. The Company intends to contest the allegations and to contest certification of any class. Due date for the Company's answer is May 20, 2021. Unico American Corporation is an insurance holding company. Currently, the Company's subsidiary Crusader Insurance Company underwrites commercial property and casualty insurance, the Company's subsidiaries Unifax Insurance Systems, Inc. and American Insurance Brokers, Inc. (AIB) provide marketing and various underwriting support services related to property, casualty, health and life insurance, the Company's subsidiary American Acceptance Company (AAC) provides insurance premium financing, and the Company's subsidiary Insurance Club, Inc., dba AAQHC, an Administrator provides membership association services. The company is based in Calabasas, California. UNITED VALET: Ascencio Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due ------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Ascencio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED VALET PARKING, INC. a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 21SMCV00903 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 17, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act, Labor Code stemming from the Defendant's failure to pay all wages due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages as a result of the Defendant's policy of improperly paying its non-exempt hourly employees; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and failure to pay wages upon ending employment of terminated or resigned employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant, have consistently maintained and enforced against Aggrieved Employees the unlawful practices and policies. The Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were made to work beyond the 8th hour of their shift without receiving the legally mandated overtime and double overtime rates of pay. The Plaintiff and his coworkers worked up to 13 hours per shift and the Defendant failed to pay them at the legally mandated rates of pay in violation of the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. As a result of the Defendant' failure to provide Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees with all wages earned, also failed to provide the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements listing the accurate gross wages earned, total hours worked, net wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a valet attendant from 2013 through March 17, 2020. UNITED VALET PARKING, INC., is a valet parking service provider, a California Corporation doing business in the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake D. Finkel, Esq. Alexander Perez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAKE D. FINKEL 3470 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213.787.7411 Facsimile: 323.916.0521 Email: jake@lawfinkel.com alex@lawfinkel.com UNUM GROUP: Class of Specialists Conditionally Certified in Loomis ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY ANN LOOMIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. UNUM GROUP CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-CV-251 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Curtis L. Collier entered an order: 1. denying the Defendant's motion for oral argument; 2. denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply; 3. granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, and the Court will conditionally certify the following collective class: "All salaried Disability Benefits Specialists who worked for Unum Group Corporation in the Short-Term Disability, Long- Term Disability, or Individual Disability Insurance departments, regardless of level (i.e., Core, Senior, or Lead), at any time since three years before May 13, 2021, and whose job duties included processing disability claims using the guidelines in Unum's Benefit Center Claims Manual;" "Disability Benefits Specialists" include the following job titles: Disability Benefit(s) Specialist, Disability Specialist, Benefit(s) Specialist, Disability Claims Examiner, Disability Benefit(s) Claim Analyst, and Life Event Specialist; 4. directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with a list of the potential opt-in plaintiffs in an electronic and importable format within twenty-eight days of entry of the accompanying Order, and this list shall include the following information: name, dates of employment, job title(s) held, last known physical address, and last known personal email address; 5. directing the parties to confer and to submit proposed agreed notice and consent forms within twenty-eight days of entry of the accompanying Order. If the parties cannot agree, Plaintiff shall file her proposed form within twenty-eight days of entry of the accompanying Order, Defendant may file its specific objections within seven days of Plaintiff's filing, and Plaintiff may respond to Defendant's objections within five days; and 6. directing that the notice shall include information regarding opt-in plaintiffs' possible responsibility for costs; (2) the notice shall be sent only by mail and email; (3) Plaintiff may ask the Court for permission to send notice to particular potential opt-in plaintiffs by text message only if notice by both mail and email is returned as undeliverable; and (4) Plaintiff may not send any reminder notices. Unum Group is a Chattanooga, Tennessee-based Fortune 500 insurance company formerly known as UnumProvident. Unum Group was created by the 1999 merger of Unum Corporation and The Provident Companies and comprises four distinct businesses -- Unum US, Unum UK, Unum Poland and Colonial Life. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RR2aqK at no extra charge.[CC] VANDA PHARMA: Gordon Must Serve Class Cert. Report by July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01108 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall serve its class certification expert report by July 30, 2021; -- Fact discovery shall begin on July 2, 2021; -- The Defendants shall serve their class certification expert rebuttal by September 17, 2019; -- The Plaintiff shall serve its class certification expert reply and its class certification motion by October 29, 2021; -- The Defendant shall serve its class certification opposition by December 1, 2021; and -- The plaintiff shall serve its reply and the parties shall file the fully briefed motion by December 29, 2021. The parties shall file a status letter by July 7, 2021 setting forth which remaining deadlines they have agreed on and which deadlines still require the Court's attention. The Court shall hold a telephone conference on July 13, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Securities/Commodities/Exchange. Vanda is a biopharmaceutical company.[CC] VELODYNE LIDAR: Discovery Ongoing in Employment Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit related to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks. On June 8, 2020, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks. The plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated plaintiffs who have not been identified and is seeking to certify the action as a class action. The plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint that adds a claim pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General Act. The First Amended Complaint does not specify the amount the plaintiff seeks to recover. Velodyne's response to the First Amended Complaint was filed on November 16, 2020 and the parties are in the process of beginning discovery concerning class certification issues. The Court has scheduled a Case Management Conference for May 26, 2021. The Company believes the allegations in the actions are without merit, and intends to defend the actions vigorously. Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company. The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California. VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Putative Securities Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces putative securities class action suits. On March 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of Velodyne filed a complaint for a putative class action against Velodyne, Anand Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, entitled Moradpour v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01486-SI. The complaint alleges purported violations of the federal securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. The complaint alleges that purported class members have suffered losses. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021. On March 12, 2021, a putative class action entitled Reese v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01736-VC, was filed against the Company, Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Hamer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, based on allegations similar to those in the earlier class action and seeking recovery on behalf of the same putative class. On March 19, 2021, another putative class action entitled Nick v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 4:21-cv-01950-JST, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company, Mr. Gopalan, Mr. Hamer, two current or former directors, and three other entities. The complaint alleges purported violations of the federal securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the Company's business, operations, controls and prospects and seeks, among other things, an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between July 2, 2020 and March 17, 2021. The Company believes that the putative class actions are likely to be consolidated and proceed as a single litigation. The Company believes the allegations in the actions are without merit, and intends to defend the actions vigorously. Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company. The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California. VENUS CONCEPT: IPO-Related Litigation Underway ---------------------------------------------- Venus Concept Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend class actions related to its Initial Public Offering (IPO). Between May 23, 2018 and June 11, 2019, four putative shareholder class actions complaints were filed against Restoration Robotics, Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the IPO. Two of these complaints, Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 18CIV02609, and Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 19CIV08173 (together, the State Actions), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, and assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The other two complaints, Guerrini v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF (together, the Federal Actions), were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaints all allege, among other things, that the Restoration Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In the State Actions, Restoration Robotics, Inc., along with the other defendants, successfully demurred to the initial Wong complaint for failure to state a claim and secured a stay of both cases based on the forum selection clause contained in its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which designates the federal district courts as the exclusive forums for claims arising under the Securities Act. However, on December 19, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg held that exclusive federal forum provisions are invalid under Delaware law. Based on this ruling, the San Mateo Superior Court lifted its stay of State Actions on December 10, 2019. On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs in the State Actions filed a consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal securities laws, alleging again that, among other things, the Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 24, 2020, the Company demurred to the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court's decision in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg and held that exclusive federal forum provisions are valid under Delaware law. On March 30, 2020, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss based on its federal forum selection clause. A hearing on the Company's demurrer and renewed motion to dismiss was held on June 12, 2020. On September 1, 2020, the court granted the renewed motion to dismiss based on the Company's forum selection clause as to the Company and individual defendants, but not as to the venture capital and underwriter defendants. On September 22, 2020, the Court entered a judgement of dismissal as to the Company and the individual defendants. On November 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order granting the renewed motion to dismiss. That appeal is pending. In the Federal Actions, which have been consolidated under the caption In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD, Lead Plaintiff Eduardo Guerrini filed his consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal securities laws on November 30, 2018. The consolidated amended complaint alleges again that, among other things, Restoration Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection with the IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. On January 29, 2019, Restoration Robotics, Inc., along with certain of its former officers and directors, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On October 18, 2019, the District Court granted Restoration Robotics, Inc. motion to dismiss as to all but two allegedly false or misleading statements contained in the Company's Prospectus. On December 9, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended complaint denying the falsity of these statements. On May 29, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the Company elected not to oppose, and on July 29, 2020, the court certified a class of investors who purchased shares of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO. On February 22, 2021, the District Court granted the parties' joint stipulation to stay all pending deadlines on the basis that the parties had reached a settlement in principle for all claims in the Federal Actions. On April 22, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed his unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 27, 2021. In addition to the State and Federal Actions, on July 11, 2019, a verified shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Mason v. Rhodes, No. 5:19-cv-03997-NC. The complaint alleges that certain of Restoration Robotics' former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties, have been unjustly enriched and violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the IPO and Restoration Robotics' 2018 proxy statement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 21, 2019, the District Court granted the parties' joint stipulation to stay the Mason action during the pendency of the Federal Actions. On March 16, 2021, the District Court granted the parties' further stipulation to stay the Mason action during the pendency of the Federal Action, and the case remains stayed. Venus Concept Inc. (formerly Restoration Robotics, Inc.) is a global medical technology company that develops, commercializes, and sells minimally invasive and non-invasive medical aesthetic and hair restoration technologies and related services. The Company's systems have been designed on a cost-effective, proprietary and flexible platform that enables it to expand beyond the aesthetic industry's traditional markets of dermatology and plastic surgery, and into non-traditional markets, including family and general practitioners and aesthetic medical spas. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. VERO BEACH, FL: Seeks to Extend Response Time to Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH TAIG, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CITY OF VERO BEACH, CHIEF DAVID CURREY in his individual capacity, CAPTAIN KEVIN MARTIN (RETIRED) in his individual capacity, LIEUTENANT JOHN PEDERSEN in his individual capacity, DETECTIVE PHIL HUDDY in his individual capacity, DETECTIVE SEAN CROWLEY in his individual capacity, and DETECTIVE MIKE GASBARRINI in his individual capacity, Case No. 9:21-cv-80391-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for them to file their response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action Certification, requesting a 14-day extension of time until Friday, June 4, 2021. Defendant Martin submits that there is good cause for this Motion and that this Motion is not interposed for purposes of undue delay, harassment, or annoyance, or to alter, negate, or otherwise affect the Court's effective disposition of this case. The Defendants say that they cannot meet this deadline and file meaningful, non-prejudicial papers in response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action Certification. To the contrary, the additional time will allow Defendant to properly and fully evaluate Plaintiff's Motion and file the appropriate response. In addition, the granting of this Motion will not prejudice any party. Finally, as a matter of consistency, the granting of this Motion will allow all Defendants, including those anticipated to be represented by conflict counsel to file their responses by the same date. The Plaintiff filed his 328 page Class Action Complaint on February 23, 2021. The Plaintiff's lawsuit arises from law enforcement investigations into illegal activity at the East Spa in 2018 and 2019. The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint alleges two counts against the Defendants collectively asserting violation of the Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges a count for search and seizure and due process violations against all the Defendants. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34yu3Xq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: William E. Lawton, Esq. Gail C. Bradford, Esq. Alyssa J. Flood, Esq. DEAN, RINGERS, MORGAN & LAWTON, P.A. Post Office Box 2928 Orlando, FL 32802-2928 Telephone: (407) 422-4310 Facsimile: 407-648-0233 E-mail: wlawton@drml-law.com gbradford@drml-law.com aflood@drml-law.com VYSTAR CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in LaChapelle Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Vystar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the counsel in the class action suit initiated by Robert LaChapelle has filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans Furniture, the Company's majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, Section 1A), and the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 Sections 148 and 150). Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours they worked on Sundays. The parties settled with the named Plaintiffs, Robert LaChapelle and certain other employees, each on an individual basis, for a de minimus amount which was paid in March 2021. Plaintiffs' counsel then filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. The settlement was included in operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020. However, after settlement, three additional former employees made similar claims and the Company is reviewing the matter. Vystar Corporation creates natural rubber latex. The Company's product is used in an extensive range of products including balloons, textiles, footwear and clothing (threads), adhesives, foams, furniture, carpet, paints, coatings, protective equipment, sporting equipment, and especially health care products such as condoms, surgical and exam gloves. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM’S WEST,INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01926-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order the following briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Event Date -- Motion for Class Certification June 7, 2021 -- Opposition to Motion for July 19, 2021 Class Certification -- Reply ISO to Motion for Aug. 11, 2021 Class Certification -- Hearing on Motion for Sept. 3, 2021 Class Certification Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. A copy of the Parties motion dated May 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ftyZD2 at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON DOC: Plaintiffs Win Provisional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, and all persons similarly situated, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, Case No. 4:21-cv-05059-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class Certification; 2. certifying the following Class and Subclasses: "All individuals identified as transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming, and/or intersex in records in the possession of the Washington State Department of Corrections who are currently or were formerly incarcerated by the Washington State Department of Corrections;" -- Current Inmate Subclass : "All individuals identified as transgender, non-binary, gender nonconforming, and/or intersex in records in the possession of the Washington State Department of Corrections who are currently incarcerated in Washington State prisons;" and -- Former Inmate Subclass: "All individuals identified as transgender, non-binary, gender nonconforming, and/or intersex in records in the possession of the Washington State Department of Corrections who were incarcerated in Washington State prisons at any time." 4. apppointing John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 3 as the Class Representatives for the certified Class and Subclasses; 5. appointing the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation; MacDonald Hoague & Bayless; Disability Rights Washington; and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP as Class Counsel for the Certified Class and Subclasses; 6. directing the class counsel within 14 days from the date of this Order, to serve and file a proposed "Notice" to members of the certified class and subclasses and suggest a method by which this should be accomplished and at whose expense; 7. giving the Defendants 14 days from service of the proposed "Notice" to serve and file any objections to the same; and 8. giving Class counsel seven days from service of any objection to serve and file a reply to the same. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Tirkie at no extra charge.[CC] WEST COVINA: Bustillos Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE BUSTILLOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST COVINA CORPORATE FITNESS, INC., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04433 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted a prerecorded voice message to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 1877 on or about February 20, 2021 in an attempt to promote its business, goods and services. The Plaintiff asserts that she never provided the Defendant her prior express written consent to be contacted by prerecorded message. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded messages, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been harmed in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, conversion, inconvenience and disruption of their daily life, the suit alleges. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and treble damages, as well as an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited call activity, and prohibiting the Defendant from using prerecorded messages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems necessary. West Covina Corporate Fitness, Inc. owns and operates a gym in West Covina, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Litvak, Esq. DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP 11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (310) 477-5575 E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com - and – Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com WEST ROAD: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Calhoun v. West Road Pizza Stop, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-12661 (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order granting motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification to August 12, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] WEST VIRGINIA: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Fain v. WVDHHR Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER FAIN; ZACHARY MARTELL; and BRIAN McNEMAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WILLIAM CROUCH, in his official capacity as Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; CYNTHIA BEANE, in her official capacity as Commissioner for the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, BUREAU FOR MEDICAL SERVICES; TED CHEATHAM, in his official capacity as Director of the West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency; and THE HEALTH PLAN OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-0740 (S.D.W. Va.), Judge Robert C. Chambers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order: a. denying Defendant Ted Cheatham's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint; b. denying Defendants William Crouch, Cynthia Beane, and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Medical Services' ("WVDHHR Defendants") Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint; and c. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply. The putative Class Action Complaint asserts several claims, each of which is rooted in the same theory: That the Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs by denying coverage for gender-confirming health care. The Complaint defines "gender-confirming care" as health care which "includes, but is not limited to, counseling, hormone replacement therapy, and surgical care for the treatment of gender dysphoria -- the clinically significant distress that can result from the dissonance between an individual's gender identity and sex assigned at birth." According to the Complaint, these treatments are denied to transgender individuals despite being available to cisgender individuals. Based on this overarching theory, the Complaint raises two types of individual and class action claims: (1) those brought by Medicaid recipients against the WVDHHR Defendants and (2) those brought by state employees and their dependents against Ted Cheatham, the Director of the West Virginia Public Employee Insurance Administration, and The Health Plan, a health maintenance organization permitted to offer health plans to state employees through PEIA. Discussion I. WVDHHR Defendants' Motion to Dismiss On Jan. 11, 2021, WVDHHR Defendants moved for partial dismissal, challenging Fain's claim for compensatory damages under the Eleventh Amendment and the sufficiency of Fain's class action allegations. On Feb. 2, 2021, they filed a second motion to dismiss, this time challenging standing and ripeness, as well as Fain's ability to represent the proposed class. With the filing of the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to WVDHHR Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on April 5, 2021, the motions became ripe for review. First, Judge Chambers finds that West Virginia waived its immunity from suit under Section 1557 by accepting federal assistance under the ACA, as provided by Section 1003's Residual Clause. WVDHHR's Motion is denied as to immunity. Second, the Judge holds that WVDHHR's policy acts as a barrier to Fain's surgery in every instance and renders alternative grounds for denial irrelevant. He rejects the argument that Fain's request would not be futile because it could be denied on grounds other than the Exclusion and concludes that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a ripe claim for which they have standing to bring. Finally, the Plaintiffs neither assert a negligence claim, nor do they seek compensatory damages on behalf of the class. Additionally, their Equal Protection, ACA, and Medicaid Act claims do not require evidence of individual "duty" or "breach." These claims are purely legal and require little to no fact development. Having failed to identify any ground upon which the Parties will be required to make particularized and individualized factual findings, WVDHHR's argument must be rejected. For these reasons, Judge Chambers denies WVDHHR's Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint and Motion to Dismiss. II. Defendant Cheatham's Motion to Dismiss On Jan. 11, 2021, Defendant Cheatham moved for dismissal, arguing that McNemar and Martell lack standing and have failed to state an Equal Protection Clause claim. Judge Chambers finds that dismissal is unwarranted on both grounds. First, the Plaintiffs' allegations are plausible because Cheatham is statutorily responsible for administering PEIA, including overseeing "provider negotiations, provider contracting and payment, designation of covered and noncovered services, and offering of additional coverage options or cost containment incentives." Therefore, the Plaintiffs' have plausibly alleged traceability. In addition, Cheatham provides evidence that he does not have control over existing policies under the PEIA's agreement with The Health Plan. However, even if the Court were to accept this assertion, Cheatham has not shown that the other proposed remedies are inadequate. Given that Cheatham is tasked with "designation of covered and noncovered services" and "offering additional coverage options," he is statutorily authorized to grant Plaintiffs access to gender-confirming care. Therefore, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' have sufficiently alleged that their injuries are redressable. Second, the Judge will not entertain Cheatham's fact-based arguments at this stage and denies Cheatham's Motion to Dismiss. Cheatham's last argument is that the Plaintiffs failed to state an Equal Protection claim upon which relief may be granted because the PEIA policy passes heightened scrutiny. As the Plaintiffs argue in their Response, Cheatham's argument is improper because it relies on facts outside of the Complaint. Conclusion For the he reasons stated, Judge Chambers denies Defendant Cheatham's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and WVDHHR Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint and Motion to Dismiss. He also grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Opinion to the counsel of Record and any unrepresented party. A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/em53skxz from Leagle.com. WESTCO CHEMICALS: Court Moots Draney Pending Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Draney v. Westco Chemicals, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order denying as moot the pending Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Summary Judgment in light of Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement, indicating that the case has settled in its entirety. According to the Civil Minutes -- General, By May 28, 2021, Plaintiffs shall file a properly noticed motion for approval of the class action settlement agreement. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution. All other dates and deadlines in this action are vacated and taken off calendar. A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vqReyp at no extra charge.[CC] WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. Comerica Bank ------------------------------------------------------------------- Woodbridge Liquidation Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.). In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), is a consolidated class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (California District Court) brought on behalf of former Noteholders and Unitholders against Comerica Bank. It is comprised of five separate lawsuits filed between January 4, 2018 and April 26, 2018. The five lawsuits were consolidated, Lead Class Counsel was appointed, and Lead Class Counsel filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on September 19, 2019. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 2), negligence (Count 3), and violations of California's unfair competition law (Count 4). On November 1, 2019, Comerica moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction). With respect to Count 1 (aiding and abetting fraud) and Count 2 (aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty), Comerica argued that the Class Plaintiffs' allegations did not demonstrate that Comerica had actual knowledge of the underlying fraud and breach of fiduciary duty that Comerica is alleged to have aided and abetted; with respect to Count 3 (negligence), Comerica argued that there is no duty of care owed to non-customers of Comerica; and with respect to Count 4 (California Unfair Competition Law), Comerica argued that a claim for unfair competition fails when there is no actual knowledge of fraud or breach of fiduciary duty and no duty owed. In addition, Comerica argued that all causes of action failed to state a claim for the additional reason that Comerica's filing or non-filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) under federal law cannot support any of the causes of action, and that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because all of the causes of action belong to the Trust such that the Class Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue them. On August 5, 2020, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Comerica's motion to dismiss. The Court denied Comerica's request to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 on the ground that the allegations of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint sufficiently alleged that Comerica had the requisite knowledge of the underlying fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The Court granted Comerica's request to dismiss Count 3 on the ground that the allegations of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint did not sufficiently allege a duty of care owed to non-customers of Comerica. On Count 4, the Court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent it relied on a failure to file a SAR (which claim the Court found was preempted by federal law, which prohibits disclosure of a SAR), but denied the motion to dismiss to the extent the complaint relied on violations arising from non-SAR-related conduct, and the Court granted the class leave to amend the complaint. The Court also denied Comerica's request to dismiss based on Comerica's allegations that the class lacked standing and that the Trust cannot be a member of a class, finding instead that the class has plausibly alleged standing to sue, and that the question of whether the Trust can be a class member did not need to be answered at this stage. On August 26, 2020, the putative class filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 2), and violations of California's unfair competition law (Count 3). Comerica answered the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on September 16, 2020. Discovery is now proceeding in the litigation, and on April 16, 2021 the plaintiffs moved to certify a class. The class certification motion remains pending. The Court has entered a schedule setting the following dates and deadlines: (i) August 3, 2021 as the fact discovery cut-off; (ii) August 20, 2021 as the deadline to file dispositive motions; (iii) September 7, 2021 as the deadline for initial expert disclosures and reports; (iv) October 22, 2021 as the expert discovery cut-off; (v) December 14, 2021 as the final pretrial conference; and (vi) January 11, 2022 as the start of what is estimated to be a 10-day jury trial. The Liquidation Trustee asserts that he is a member of the putative class and Comerica disputes that assertion. Woodbridge Liquidation Trust and its wholly-owned subsidiary Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity LLC (the "Wind-Down Entity") were formed pursuant to the Plan. The purpose of the Trust is to prosecute various causes of action owned by the Trust, to litigate and resolve claims filed against the Debtors, to pay allowed administrative and priority claims against the Debtors (including professional fees), to receive cash from certain sources and, in accordance with the Plan, to make distributions of cash to Interestholders subject to the retention of various reserves and after the payment of Trust expenses and administrative and priority claims. The trust is based in Sherman Oaks, California. XL FLEET: Suh and Kumar Putative Class Suits Underway ----------------------------------------------------- XL Fleet Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend two putative class action suits entitled, Suh v. XL Fleet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02002 and Kumar v. XL Fleet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02171. On March 8, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in federal district court for the Southern District of New York (Suh v. XL Fleet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02002) against the Company and certain of its current officers and directors. On March 12, 2021, a second putative class action complaint was filed in federal district court for the Southern District of New York (Kumar v. XL Fleet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02171) against the Company and certain of its current officers and directors. Both the Suh Complaint and the Kumar Complaint allege that certain public statements made by the defendants between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021 violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Company believes that the allegations asserted in the Suh Complaint and Kumar Complaint are without merit, and the Company intends to vigorously defend both lawsuits. XL Fleet said, "There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to either lawsuit." XL Fleet Corp. is a leading provider of fleet electrification solutions for commercial vehicles in North America, with over 4,30 electrified powertrain systems sold and driven over 140 million miles by over 200 fleets as of December 31, 2020. The company's vision is to become the world leader in fleet electrification solutions, with a mission of accelerating the adoption of fleet electrification systems through cost-effective, customer-tailored and comprehensive solutions. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. XO GLOBAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against XO Global LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. XO Global LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02996 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. XOJET -- https://flyxo.com/ -- is an American on-demand private jet charter company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, with a 24/7 operations center at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport and sales offices located in New York City, New York, Newport, California, and Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com XPRESSPA GROUP: Finalization of Collins Settlement Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- XpresSpa Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the parties in Kyle Collins v. Spa Products Import & Distribution Co., LLC et al., are currently in the process of preparing/finalizing settlement papers. This is a combined class action and California Private Attorney's General Act (PAGA) action. Plaintiff seeks to recover wages, penalties and PAGA penalties for claims for (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest breaks, (3) failure to pay overtime, (4) inaccurate wage statements, (5) waiting time penalties, and (6) PAGA penalties of $100 per employee per pay period per violation. There are approximately 240 current and former employees in the litigation class. The parties agreed to mediation on May 26, 2020, however, due to COVID-19 the parties subsequently stayed all proceedings. The mediation session occurred on March 18, 2021, and the parties reached a settlement in principle. The parties are currently in the process of preparing/finalizing settlement papers. XpresSpa Group, Inc., a health and wellness services company, provides spa services to travelers at airports. The Company was formerly known as FORM Holdings Corp. and changed its name to XpresSpa Group, Inc. in January 2018. XpresSpa Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York. YWL USA: Attorney's Fee Award Reduced to $17K in Wan Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LU WAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. YWL USA INC. d/b/a BUDDHA ASIAN BISTRO SUSHI HIBACHI STEAK HOUSE, AI QIN CHEN, and JANE DOE, Case No. 7:18-cv-10334-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees and costs. Judge Seibel says that the requested fee award of $61,174.50 is reduced to $17,703.90. She also awarded $1,491.73 in costs. Accordingly, the total award of fees and costs is $19,195.63. Judgment will be entered in a separate order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 12, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fpf5Jw at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 2021. 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 ***