/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210809.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 9, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 152 Headlines 291 CBW: Rogers FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers 3M COMPANY: Axe Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Braud Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Coomer Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Ellis Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Goodwin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Hamilton Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Iochum Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Kenny Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Palmer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Rice Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Rogers Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Settlement in Suit Over PFOA in Drinking Water Pending 3M COMPANY: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed 3M COMPANY: Teller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Wilkerson Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER: Toney Bid for Class Certification Tossed AMAZON.COM INC: Flores Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to N.D. Ill. AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Seeks Pay for Mandatory Security Screenings AMAZON.COM: Kryzhanovskiy Slams Gender Discrimination AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Galeas Claims APACHE CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Discloses Securities Class Action ARCH INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Gordon Suit ARDELYX INC: Strezsak Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ARISE VIRTUAL: Misclassifies Customer Support Agents, Bell Claims ARKANSAS GENERAL: Little Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice AUSTIN JACKSON: Seeks to Stay WWH Class Status Proceedings BANK OF AMERICA: Hicks Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California BOSCH SOLAR: Rojas Class Certification Hearing Reset to Oct. 28 BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Class Cert. Scheduling Order in Rice Entered CAMPBELL SOUP: Cleveland FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. California CANADA: Agrees to Spend Almost C$8-Bil. to Settle Lawsuits CANADIAN HELICOPTERS: Passengers File Class Action Over Negligence CMRE FINANCIAL: St. George Suit Moved From C.D to S.D. California COINBASE GLOBAL: Klein Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline COINBASE GLOBAL: Rosen Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline CONCHO RESOURCES: Faces Warwick Suit Over Price Share Drop CONDUENT INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid to Reopen NJ Securities Suit OK'd CORMEDIX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 20 Deadline CORMEDIX INC: Patrick Hits Share Price Drop CURATION FOODS: Labor Law Firms File Class Action Lawsuit CVS HEALTH: Piescik Sues Over Hand Sanitizer Product's False Ad D&D PIZZA INC: Mason Hits Unreimbursed Expenses, Unpaid Min. Wages DOMINO'S PIZZA: Violates False Advertising Law, Traer Suit Alleges DRAFTKINGS INC: Hoorn Sues Over 4.17% Decline of Stock Price DSW RESTAURANT: Faces Contreras Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Texas EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of April 24 Deadline ENCHANCED RECOVERY: Jackin Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Washington EQUANIMITY BEHAVIORAL: Vidaurre Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ERIC BRADLEY: Hernandez-Sierra Bid for Class Cert. Tossed as Moot ERIC BRADLEY: Palmer Bid for Class Status Junked as Moot FINAL CLEANING: Zamora Sues Over Failure to Pay Sewers' OT Wages FIRST NATIONS: Settlement Reached Over Clean Drinking Water Suit FLINT, MI: Discusses Attorneys Fees in Water Crisis Settlement GARDA CL NORTHWEST: Gann Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colorado GENERAL DYNAMICS: Settlement in Loreto Suit Wins Initial Approval GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Enters Class Certification Schedule GRANDMAMA'S HOUSE: Underpays Childcare Professionals, Kerns Claims HANWHA TECHWIN: Illinois Court Dismisses Jacobs BIPA Class Suit HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, AR: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Middleton Suit ISLAND EXTERIOR: Choukroun Sues Over Design Associates' Unpaid OT JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baker Sues Over Adulterated Sunscreen Products JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hellner Suit Moved from State Ct. to C.D. Calif. JUUL LABS: Bayard School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Murrieta District Says JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, New Glarus School Claims JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Tuslaw Claims JUUL LABS: East Jackson Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction JUUL LABS: Faces Maine School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Faces Yale Suit Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Mich. JUUL LABS: Fairless School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Jackson School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Elgin School District Says JUUL LABS: Massillon School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ohio JUUL LABS: Minerva School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic JUUL LABS: Parkview School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Wis. JUUL LABS: Sandy Valley Sues Over High E-Cigarette Use Among Youth JUUL LABS: Shawnee District Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth LEGACY SUPPLY: Faces Ramos Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data LG BEST: Faces Lopez Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data LIFESTYLE LEGAL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Legal Services MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked for Call Center Agents MERRICK GARLAND: Denial of Murphy Class Status Bid Endorsed MUFG UNION BANK: Taylor Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violations NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Dugan Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Filing NEW SCHOOL: First Amended Amable Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice NORMAN BARWIN: Agrees to $13M Settlement Over Fertility Class Suit OATLY GROUP: Faces Bentley Suit Over 7.8% Drop of Share Price OATLY GROUP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of September 24 Deadline OATLY GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 24 Deadline OHIO: Cooper & Damschroder Dismissed From Heyward v. AOCI & ORDC PAYPAL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Management of Accounts PAYROLL MADE: $220K Class Deal in Broughton Suit Has Prelim. Nod PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Semple Class Action PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Still Not Served PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Underway in Canada PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Class Suit Ongoing in Canada PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action Underway in Canada PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 21 Deadline PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Employees File Racial Discrimination Suit REGGIANO CORP: Galvez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Deductions ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon Suit Remanded to Spokane Super. Court ROBINHOOD SECURITIES: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Sought ROYAL CARIBBEAN: 11th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of McIntosh Suit SD AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Pelico Suit Says SKYLIMIT CONTRACTING: Underpays Scaffolders, Fajardo Suit Claims STABLE ROAD: Hall Files Suit Over Share Price Drop STABLE ROAD: Klein Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline TARTE COSMETICS: Ferguson BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois TESLA INC: Reportedly Agrees to $1.5M Settlement for Battery Case TIREHUB LLC: Bid to Dismiss Jones' 1st Amended Complaint Granted TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Supra Repairs TRUGREEN INC: Faces Lorea Employment Suit in Calif. State Court TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Kudatsky Suit Gets Final Nod UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Three Classes UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Haberlein Suit Over FLSA Violations UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Retirement Plan Members File ERISA Suit UPS STORE: McLaren Consumer Fraud Suit Goes to D. New Jersey US FERTILITY: Leonard Suit Transferred from E.D.N.Y. to Maryland VERTAFORE INC: Demetros Sues Over Use of Motor Vehicle Records VILLAGE OF ALSIP, IL: Court Dismisses Lewis Suit Without Prejudice WARDROBE LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Tatum-Rios Says WESTERN EXPRESS: Class of Truck Drivers Certified in Elmy Suit ZYNERBA PHARMA: Whiteley Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ********* 291 CBW: Rogers FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELLE ROGERS AND ASHLEY WILBURN, on Behalf of Themselves and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. 12291 CBW, LLC, RCI DINING SERVICES (BEAUMONT), INC., and RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00266-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in this case. According to the complaint, witnesses testified that the Class Members performed the same job duties at Temptations, were required to pay the same "House Fees" to Defendants, clocked-in using the same time clock system, earned money primarily from tips from customers, and were all classified as independent contractors. There are hundreds of other dancers in the Class and the evidence establishes that these Class Members are "similarly situated" in every material respect. The Defendant RCI Hospitality is a publicly-traded company that owns and operates a variety of businesses in the adult entertainment industry, including adult entertainment nightclubs. RCI operates its adult entertainment nightclubs through several brands that it claims "target many different demographics of customers by providing a unique, quality entertainment environment." Temptations is one such brand. Temptations operates a Forth Worth location and a Beaumont location The dancers at Temptations are universally misclassified by Defendants as independent contractors and not as employees. As a result of being labeled as independent contractors, the dancers (1) are not paid wages, (2) are required to pay Defendants' "House Fees," and (3) are required to give portions of their tips to employees of Defendants who work in positions that normally do not receive tips. Defendants' illegal misclassification policy has existed for years. Despite the law in the Fifth Circuit being settled for approximately 30 years that dancers are employees, Defendants have simply refused to comply with the law. This lawsuit is designed to remedy Defendants' illegal conduct. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jo8qjw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Axe Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DANIEL AXE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02185-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Axe case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Braud Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN PAUL BRAUD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02182-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Braud case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Coomer Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY COOMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02376-RMG (D.S.C., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, the suit says. As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Ellis Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------ GLENN CHESTER ELLIS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02183-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Ellis case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Goodwin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF -------------------------------------------------------------- FREDDIE GOODWIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02190-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Goodwin case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Hamilton Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF --------------------------------------------------------------- MARION MALACHI HAMILTON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02191-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Hamilton case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Iochum Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- KARL FRANCIS IOCHUM v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02188-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Iochum case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Kenny Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------ ALAN ROBERT KENNY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02184-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Kenny case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Palmer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- JOEY DAVID PALMER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02186-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Palmer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Rice Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ----------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN RICE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02189-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Rice case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Rogers Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- RALPH ROGERS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02180-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Rogers case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Settlement in Suit Over PFOA in Drinking Water Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement in the putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, awaits court approval. In New York, 3M is defending 40 individual cases and one putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and four additional individual cases filed in New York state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., Tonaga, Inc. (Taconic) is also a defendant in the state court actions. Plaintiffs allege that Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) discharged from fabric coating facilities operated by non-3M entities (that allegedly had used PFOA-containing materials from 3M, among others) contaminated the drinking water in the Village of Hoosick Falls, the Town of Hoosick and Petersburg, New York. They assert various tort claims for personal injury and property damage and in some cases request medical monitoring. 3M has answered the complaints in these individual cases, which are now proceeding through discovery. In the federal court individual cases, the parties selected 24 claimants in May 2021 for a pool from which eight plaintiffs will be chosen for expert discovery and dispositive motions. At the conclusion of these motions, the court will determine which case(s) will continue toward trial. In the putative class action, class certification briefing is complete, and in July 2021, certain parties, including 3M, reached an agreement to resolve litigation among the settling parties, pending approval by the district court. Under the agreement, 3M, Saint-Gobain and Honeywell will collectively contribute to a fixed total amount of approximately $65 million to resolve the plaintiffs' claims and those of the proposed classes. 3M's contribution is not considered material. 3M is also defending 12 individual cases in New York filed by Nassau and Suffolk County drinking water providers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs in these cases allege that products manufactured by 3M, DuPont, and additional unnamed defendants contaminated plaintiffs' water supply sources with various PFAS compounds. DuPont's motion to transfer these cases to the AFFF MDL was denied in March 2020. 3M has filed answers in these cases and discovery is ongoing. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M COMPANY: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------ 3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case. A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M, BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John" case), seeking property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case, pending ongoing mediation between the parties involved in this case and another case. Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case, respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case. The Company is in active discussions for negotiated resolutions with multiple parties regarding filed claims and pre-litigation disputes related to historical Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) manufacturing operations in Alabama. 3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives, ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products, closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components, abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M COMPANY: Teller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH TUTTLE TELLER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02187-RMG (D.S.C., July 19, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Teller case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Wilkerson Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02375-RMG (D.S.C., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with colon cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER: Toney Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE TONEY v. ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP, INC. and STRATICS NETWORKS, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-00182-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Embry J. Kidd entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Judge Kidd said, "Advantage argues that the Court should not certify the class or the subclasses because Plaintiff fails to satisfy all of the Rule 23 requirements and standing. The Plaintiff has not provided the undersigned with any evidence that he received "more than one unwanted telemarketing call" or binding authority that receipt of a single phone call with a voice message constitutes an injury in fact for Article III standing purposes. Advantage also argues that the Court should not certify the class or the subclasses because Plaintiff fails to satisfy all of the Rule 23 requirements and standing. Thus, I conclude that Plaintiff does not have standing even under his alternative rendition of events. I respectfully recommend that the Motion be denied." The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff alleges that on November 1, 2019, he started receiving "ringless voicemails." The Plaintiff alleges that these voice messages were unsolicited and caused him actual harm -- "wast[ing] twenty-seven seconds reviewing Defendants' unwanted message." As a result of Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff brought this lawsuit, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: "All persons within the United States who during the four years prior to filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a prerecorded message (2) using software provided by Stratics, and (3) where the prerecorded message directed the individual to contact Defendant [Advantage]." In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks to certify the following subclasses: Service Subclass: "All persons within the United States who during the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a prerecored message (2) using the software provided by Stratics, (3) where the prerecorded message directed the individual to contact Defendant [Advantage], and (4) where Defendant [Advantage] exclusively obtained the individual's contact information as a result of the individual servicing their vehicle at Defendant [Advantage's] dealership and not from [Advantage's] website or as a result of the individual purchasing a vehicle from [Advantage]. Purchase Subclass: "All persons within the United States who during the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a prerecorded message (2) using the software provided by Stratics, (3) where the prerecorded message directed the individual to contact Defendant [Advantage], and (4) where Defendant [Advantage] obtained the individual's contact information because of the individual purchasing a vehicle from [Advantage] and not from [Advantage's] website. Website Subclass: "All persons within the United States who during the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a prerecorded message (2) using the software provided by Stratics, (3) where the prerecorded message directed the individual to contact Defendant [Advantage], and (4) [Advantage] obtained the individual's contact information because of the individual imputing their information on [Advantage's] website. No Evidence Subclass: "All persons within the United States who during the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a prerecorded message (2) using the software provided by Stratics, (3) where the prerecorded message directed the individual to contact Defendant [Advantage], and (4) where Defendant [Advantage] did not obtain the individual's contact information as result of any of the following: (a) the individual purchasing a vehicle from [Advantage], (b) the individual imputing their information on [Advantage's] website, or (c) the individual servicing their vehicle at Defendant [Advantage's] dealership. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TWGeeX at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Flores Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LUCIA FLORES, DONNA RUCKER, JASON STEBBINS, SANDY WHITE, JULIE BLOOM STEBBINS, CHERI ANNE CLARKE, and BECKY WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00873, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 2, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04064 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting or storing the biometric identifiers of the buyers of Amazon's Alexa devices without obtaining prior written consent. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence, with its headquarters located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington. Amazon.com Services, Inc. is a provider of e-commerce services, with its headquarters located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David B. Richardson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. RICHARDSON, P.S. 2135 112th Ave., N.E., Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 646-9801 Facsimile: (425) 451-2661 E-mail: david@dbrlaw.com - and – Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com - and – Aaron Siri, Esq. Mason Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com mbarney@sirillp.com AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Seeks Pay for Mandatory Security Screenings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Hetrick at The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Pennsylvania employers must pay workers for time spent going through mandatory security screenings, the state Supreme Court has ruled, a decision that threatens to force Amazon.com to compensate hundreds of workers for thousands of previously unpaid hours. The 5-2 decision last week stems from a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, claiming the firm failed to pay warehouse workers in Breinigsville, Pa., near Allentown in Lehigh County, for security checks. The state Supreme Court did not decide the final outcome of the Amazon case but ruled on the specific question of whether screenings count as "hours worked" under Pennsylvania law. The ruling could have implications across Pennsylvania beyond the Breinigsville warehouse. Amazon now faces a similar suit in Philadelphia seeking unpaid wages for all of the company's current and former workers at Pennsylvania fulfillment centers. And the decision could open the door for claims against other companies. For example, the time spent logging into software at call centers or donning a gown at meat processing plants could be affected by the ruling, legal experts said. "In the era of COVID, one could imagine that it might also include things like temperature checks and rapid tests," said Sophia Lee, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Amazon now encircles the Philadelphia region with over 50 warehouses After clocking out for the day, Amazon workers in Breinigsville had to undergo security screenings to make sure they hadn't stolen goods. The checks included metal detectors and bag inspections. Sometimes, employees got stuck in line. The average employee incurred about 21 minutes of unpaid time a week, plaintiffs claimed, though Amazon disputes how long the security checks took. Workers at the warehouse racked up a total of 205,725 hours of unpaid time between 2010 and 2015, according to court records. Plaintiffs' lawyers did not attach a dollar figure to the total but suggested workers would be owed millions in back wages. One staffer's unpaid time totaled 67.75 hours over four years. In 2013, employees Neil Heimbach and Karen Salasky sued in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, and the suit was consolidated with similar claims in other states. A federal judge in Kentucky tossed out those claims after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a separate case, ruled that security screenings were not compensable under federal law. The Breinigsville workers still sought back pay under Pennsylvania law. They appealed their case to the federal appeals court for Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee, which asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for guidance on the state's wage law. The state court ruled July 21 that mandatory security screenings do count as hours worked in Pennsylvania. It said that state wage law doesn't view short time periods -- known as "de minimis" time -- as too trivial for compensation. Pennsylvania's minimum wage law "plainly and unambiguously requires payment for 'all hours worked,' signifying the legislature's intent that any portion of the hours worked by an employee does not constitute a mere trifle," Justice Debra Todd, a Democrat, wrote for the majority. Amazon spokesperson Barbara Agrait declined comment, citing active litigation. In court papers, Amazon contends that its security screenings were not mandatory because workers had the option of using so-called express lanes if they left bags or other items before they entered the facility. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas Saylor, a Republican, said the ruling could expose employers to lawsuits for failing to pay overtime for all sorts of activities, such as swiping security cards at turnstiles, opening doors, pushing elevator buttons, and traveling hallways. "Both since it is impractical to attempt to record time for all such collateral undertakings -- and because such undertakings do not in my judgment comprise what I believe the legislature would reasonably have conceived as work -- I respectfully dissent," he wrote. The eight-year-old case will now resume in federal court, said Peter Winebrake, the lawyer for the Breinigsville workers. He said the Pennsylvania ruling is part of a trend throughout the country of courts expanding rights under state wage laws beyond what's provided under federal law. "Ten years ago, there was just this presumption [among employers] that 'as long as we're complying with the federal law, we're going to be good,'" said Winebrake, of the Dresher-based law firm Winebrake & Santillo. "Now businesses really have to, in addition to asking whether they're complying with the federal law, they have to start looking at the state laws." In Nevada, Amazon and a staffing agency, Integrity Staffing Solutions, agreed to pay $13.5 million to settle a similar security check case involving 42,000 warehouse workers. A federal judge approved the settlement last week. The unpaid security screenings were among the issues driving an organizing effort at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama, where workers rejected unionization by a wide margin. Citing the Pennsylvania ruling, Winebrake filed the new suit against Amazon last week, seeking unpaid wages for its workers across the state. The ruling in Pennsylvania could pave the way for lawsuits against other companies that impose requirements on their workers before and after shifts. One activity that's been a source of similar claims is putting on and removing uniforms and safety equipment, said Lee, the Penn Law professor. Companies such as Apple and FedEx have been sued over unpaid security screenings, too, she added. [GN] AMAZON.COM: Kryzhanovskiy Slams Gender Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------- Leilani Kryzhanovskiy, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Amazon.com Services, LLC, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01292 (E.D. Cal., July 22, 2021), seeks general, compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, statutory penalties, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as the imposition of civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Wage Commission Order. Kryzhanovskiy was hired by Amazon in January 2020 to work as an Onsite Medical Representative primarily assigned to its Stockton, California warehouse locations. Shortly after Plaintiff was hired, a male with comparable qualifications and experiences was hired for the same position and was inexplicably offered substantially more in wages. Kryzhanovskiy was offered at the time of her hire, shift differentials as well as other remuneration such as "Guarantee Pay" and "additional pay" that was required to be included in her regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime and double-time earnings. However, Amazon did not include these other items of remuneration when calculating her regular rate of pay. She also claims that she was denied overtime pay and such hours did not reflect on her wage statements. Once her supervisors became aware of her complaints regarding violations of the Labor Code and gender discrimination, they began retaliating against her. She claims to be passed on for a promotion because of her actions, the complaint relates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wasserman, Esq. Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209)473-4818 Email: rwasserman@mayallaw.com jbaysinger@mayallaw.com AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Galeas Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CESY GALEAS, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04218 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking injunctive relief and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other appropriate relief as a result of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid machine operator from in or about December 2011 to in or about May 31, 2021, claims that the Defendant failed to timely pay him and other similarly situated manual workers "on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned. Instead, the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly or semi-monthly basis, thereby violated New York Labor Law Section 191, the Plaintiff added. Amneal Phrmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com APACHE CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Discloses Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"), announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into APA Corporation (NasdaqGS: APA) formerly Apache Corporation. On March 12, 2020, the Company disclosed it was slashing its quarterly dividend per share "from $0.25 to $0.025" and that, "[o]ver the coming weeks, the company will reduce its Permian rig count to zero, limiting exposure to short-cycle oil projects." Then, on March 16, 2020, pre-market, Seeking Alpha issued a report noting that the Company was carrying "the highest debt-to-equity ratio among large-cap independent [exploration and production companies]," that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance sheet" and its "financial health isn't great," among other things. The Company and certain of its executives have been sued in a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws, which is ongoing. KSF's investigation is focusing on whether APA's officers and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to APA's shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws. If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation, or have been a long-term holder of APA shares and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-apa/ to learn more. About KSF Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN] ARCH INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Gordon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GORDON, ET AL. v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-01911-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All factual discovery shall be completed by February 28, 2022. 2. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses they intend to designate on issues related to class certification, including expert reports, by November 22, 2021. 3. Defendant shall disclose any expert witnesses it intends to designate on issues related to class certification, including expert reports, by January 13, 2022. 4. Plaintiffs shall disclose any rebuttal expert witnesses on issues related to class certification, including rebuttal expert reports, by January 28, 2022. 5. Plaintiffs shall move for class certification by February 18, 2022. 6. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by March 28, 2022. 7. Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification is due by April 29, 2022. 8. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses they intend to designate on merits issues, including expert reports, by May 13, 2022. 9. Defendant shall disclose any expert witnesses it intends to designate on merits issues, including expert reports, by June 10, 2022. 10. Plaintiffs shall disclose any rebuttal expert witnesses on merits issues, including rebuttal expert reports, by July 8, 2022. 11. All discovery requests and depositions directed to expert witnesses designated on merits issues shall be completed by August 8, 2022. Arch Insurance is a commercial property casualty insurer. The company provides specialty products through an exclusive distribution network. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VnKfKa at no extra charge.[CC] ARDELYX INC: Strezsak Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN STREZSAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ARDELYX INC., MIKE RAAB, and JUSTIN RENZ, Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2021) is a federal securities class action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased Ardelyx securities between August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the Class Period), and who were damaged thereby. In June 2020, Defendants submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Ardelyx's lead product candidate, tenapanor, supposedly first-in-class medicine for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis. According to Ardelyx, tenapanor has "a unique mechanism of action and acts locally in the gut to inhibit the sodium hydrogen exchanger 3, or NHE3," resulting in the "tightening of the epithelial cell junctions, thereby significantly reducing paracellular uptake of phosphate, the primary pathway of phosphate absorption." If approved, tenapanor "would be the first therapy for phosphate management that blocks phosphorus absorption at the primary pathway of uptake[,]" and "could greatly improve patient adherence and compliance with one single pill dosed twice daily in contrast to current therapies where typically multiple pills are taken before every meal." Thus, tenapanor (and its promise) was widely touted by Defendants and, accordingly, extremely important to the valuation (and future success) of Ardelyx securities. The FDA accepted Ardelyx's NDA in September 2020 and set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") date of April 29, 2021. According to the complaint, the Company repeatedly lauded this development, highlighting the FDA's acceptance and review of the NDA, supported by so-called "successful" Phase 3 studies, in each subsequently filed quarterly report and in the Company's 2020 Annual Report (defined below). Even when the FDA requested that the Company provide additional information related to Ardelyx's clinical data, which caused the PDUFA date to slip by three months, the Defendants continued to hype Ardelyx's "positive" clinical trial results, which, according to them, showed "improvements" over current treatments, supported tenapanor's "clinical safety and efficacy," and reinforced its "potential" as a "transformative" treatment. At no point did Defendants state (much less suggest) that there may be fatal issues with the drug, its clinical trial data, or both. Rather, Defendants simply claimed that the FDA's request was merely because they needed help to "better understand the clinical data in light of tenapanor's novel mechanism of action as compared to approved therapies." The Defendants' rosy narrative, however, came to a screeching halt after the market closed on July 19, 2021. At that time, Ardelyx announced that it had received a letter from the FDA, dated July 13, 2021, that said the administration had found deficiencies that precluded discussion around the would-be labeling and post-marketing requirements for tenapanor. Critically, the FDA said it detected issues with both the size and clinical relevance of the drug's treatment effect. Immediately, analysts cut their price targets and downgraded the Company's rating. Piper Sandler, for example, rated Ardelyx neutral (down from a buy-equivalent rating) and wrote, "we struggle to see a path forward for Tenapanor." Raymond James, another analyst, reset the Company's price target to $4 from $14 per share. The Company's share price likewise plunged, falling $9.71 per share, or nearly 74%, in a single day, to close at $2.01 per share on July 20, 2021, before falling another 4.2% by market close on July 21, 2021. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading 9 statements regarding tenapanor and the likelihood that it would be approved by the FDA. The Defendants possessed, were in control over, and, as a result, knew (or had reason to know) that the data submitted to support the NDA was insufficient in that it showed a lack of clinical relevance of the drug's treatment effect, making it foreseeably likely (if not certain) that the FDA would not 13 the drug. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing. Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company focused on developing first-in-class medicine to improve treatment for people with cardiorenal disease. This includes patients with chronic kidney disease ("CKD") on dialysis suffering from elevated serum phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia; and CKD patients and/or heart failure patients with elevated serum potassium, or hyperkalemia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com jzimmerman@scott-scott.com ARISE VIRTUAL: Misclassifies Customer Support Agents, Bell Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DONNA BELL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00538-WBG (W.D. Mo., July 27, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional and willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Customer Support Professional (CSP) from approximately October 2019 through December 2019 and September 2020 to March 2021. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action asserting claims that the Defendant misclassified her and other similarly situated CSPs as "Independent Business Owners" or agents of "Independent Business Owners." This is allegedly the Defendant way of avoiding to compensate them at least minimum wage for all the time spent performing duties for the Defendant. Specifically, the Defendant did not compensate them for the training time, and has required them to pay for the training, equipment, and other expenses that were needed to perform their work. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated CSPs received an hourly rate that is less than the federal minimum wage rate. Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc. operates as a call center. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. Michelle Cassorla, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com mcassorla@llrlaw.com - and – Jack McInnes, Esq. Ben Ashworth, Esq. MCINNES LAW LLC 1900 W 75th St. #220 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 220-2488 E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com ben@mcinnes-law.com ARKANSAS GENERAL: Little Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD LITTLE v. ARKANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00501-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice. Plaintiff Edward Little is in custody at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction. He filed this action pro se. Mr. Little did not pay the $402 filing and administrative fee or file an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (IFP Application). On June 17, 2021, the Court instructed Mr. Little that to proceed with this action, he must either pay the filing fee or file a complete IFP Application within 30 days. 2 Mr. Little was warned that his failure to comply with the June 17, 2021 Order would result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice. Mr. Little has not complied with or otherwise responded to the June 17, 2021 Order, and the time for doing so has passed. All pending motions are denied as moot. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fBqyp2 at no extra charge.[CC] AUSTIN JACKSON: Seeks to Stay WWH Class Status Proceedings ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH, et al., v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00616-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying all further briefing and proceedings related to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and motion for class certification until after the Defendants' forthcoming jurisdictional challenges have been resolved. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 13, 2021. The various State Defendants and Defendant Penny Clarkston received service on either July 14 or July 15, 2021. The Defendant Mark Lee Dickson was served on July 16, 2021. Pursuant to the applicable rules, State Defendants intend to file their responsive pleadings by August 4, 2021, and Mr. Dickson intends to file his responsive pleading by August 6, 2021. Defendants are also aware that Plaintiffs have filed a lengthy motion for summary judgment and a separate motion for class certification. The Defendants intend to raise various jurisdictional arguments in their initial responsive pleadings, explaining why this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case and why many or all of the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by sovereign immunity. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37jBhzM at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorney for all Plaintiffs are: Christen Mason Hebert, Esq. JOHNS & HEBERT PLLC 2028 East Ben White Blvd., Suite 240-1000 Austin, TX 78741 Telephone: (512) 399-3150 E-mail: chebert@johnshebert.com The Attorneys for The Ajiya Center, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Jane's Due Process, Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, North Texas Equal Access Fund, are: Stephanie Toti, Esq. LAWYERING PROJECT 41 Schermerhorn Street #1056 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (646) 490-1083 E-mail: stoti@lawyeringproject.org The Attorneys for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, and Dr. Bhavik Kumar, are: Julie Murray, Esq. Richard Muniz, Esq. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICAN 1110 Vermont Ave., NW Ste 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 973-4997 E-mail: Julie.marray@ppfa.org Richard.muiniz@ppfa.org The Attorneys for The Ajiya Center, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Jane's Due Process, Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, North Texas Equal Access Fund, are: Rupali Sharma, Esq. LAWYERING PROJECT 197 Pine Street, Apt. 23 Portland, ME 04102 Telephone: (908) 930-6445 E-mail: rsharma@lawyeringproject.org The Attorneys for Whole Woman's Health, Whole Woman's Health Alliance, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Allison Gilbert, MD., Brookside Women's Medical Center PA d/b/a Brookside Women's Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC d/b/a Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Reverend Daniel Kanter, and Reverend Erika Forbes, are: Molly Duane, Esq. Kirby Tyrrell, Esq. Melanie Fontes, Esq. CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 199 Water Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (917) 637-3631 E-mail: mduane@reprorights.org ktyrrell@reprorights.org mfontes@reprorights.org - and - Jamie A. Levitt, Esq. J. Alexander Lawrence Morrison & Foerster LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 468-8000 E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com alawrence@mofo.com The Attorneys for Houston Women's Clinic, are: Julia Kaye, Esq. Brigitte Amiri, Esq. Chelsea Tejada, Esq. Lorie Chaiten, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18 th Floor New York, NY I 0004 Telephone: (212) 549-2633 E-mail: jkaye@aclu.org bamiri@aclu.org ctejada@aclu.org rfp_lc@aclu.org - and - Adriana Pinon, Esq. David Donatti, Esq. Andre Segura, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC. 5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 Facsimile: (713) 942-8966 E-mail: apinon @aclutx.org ddonatti@aclutx.org asegura@aclutx.org The Counsel for State Defendants are: Ken Paxton, Esq. Brent Webster, Esq. Grant Dorfman, Esq. Shawn E. Cowles, Esq. Thomas A. Albright, Esq. Benjamin S. Walton, Esq. Christopher D. Hilton, Esq. Halie Daniels, Esq. Beth Klusmann, Esq. Natalie Thompson, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 463-2120 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 E-mail: Benjamin.Walton@oag.texas.gov Christopher.Hilton@oag.texas.gov Halie.Daniels@oag.texas.gov Beth.Klusmann@oag.texas.gov Natalie.Thompson@oag.texas.gov The Attorneys for the Defendant Penny Clarkston are: Andrew B. Stephens, Esq. Heather Gebelin Hacker, Esq. HACKER STEPHENS LLP 108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 399-3022 E-mail: andrew@hackerstephens.com heather@hackerstephens.com The Counsel for the Defendant Mark Lee Dickson are: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. Mitchell Law PLLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 686-3940 Facsimile: (512) 686-3941 E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law BANK OF AMERICA: Hicks Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JULIE HICKS, KUANG TING CHONG, and STEPHANIE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-05544, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on August 2, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01384-LAB-MSB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied duty of competence, and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the Unfair Competition Law by failing to implement appropriate security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the Employment Development Department (EDD) debit cards of California residents. Bank of America, N.A. is a financial institution with its principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Gubernick, Esq. GUBERNICK LAW, P.L.L.C. 10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19, PMB 12 Phoenix, AZ 85037 Telephone: (734) 678-5169 E-mail: ben@gubernicklaw.com - and – David N. Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE A Professional Corporation 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 788-5100 Facsimile: (818) 479-9990 E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com BOSCH SOLAR: Rojas Class Certification Hearing Reset to Oct. 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE R. ROJAS and ANDREA N. ROJAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BOSCH SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-05841-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order approving stipulation to continue briefing deadlines on motion for class certification; and resetting hearing date from October 21, 2021 at 9:00 am to October 28, 2021 at 9:00 am. The parties have agreed to continue the due date for Bosch Solar's opposition briefing, and Plaintiffs' reply briefing, by two weeks. Bosch Solar's opposition briefing will be due no later than August 20, 2021, and Plaintiffs' reply briefing will be due no later than October 5, 2021. Bosch Solar manufactures silicon-based photovoltaic products and solar cells. The Company distributes crystalline silicon solar modules and ingots. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VC59oj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew G. Ball, Esq. John W. Rotunno, Esq. Joseph C. Wylie II, Esq. K&L GATES LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 249 1014 Facsimile: (415) 882 8220 E-mail: matthew.ball@klgates.com john.rotunno@klgates.com joseph.wylie@klgates.com BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Class Cert. Scheduling Order in Rice Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALLY E. RICE, as trustee for the Winston Lawrence Rice Trust, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP, Case No. 4:20-cv-00431-GKF-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered a second amended class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. Documents previously produced December 10, 2021 by Parties shall be deemed authenticated 2. Class Certification Motion and December 10, 2021 Plaintiff's expert disclosures 3. Response to Class Certification February 9, 2022 Motion and Defendant's expert disclosures 4. Reply to Class Certification March 11, 2022 Motion 5. Class Certification Discovery March 11, 2022 cutoff 6. Parties agree to participate March 25, 2022 in private mediation by 7. Hearing on Class Certification April 8, 2022 Motion at 9:30 a.m. Burlington Resources owns and operates oil and gas wells. A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUyZfp at no extra charge.[CC] CAMPBELL SOUP: Cleveland FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Denise Cleveland, Lanna Rainwater, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Campbell Soup Company, Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Case No. RG21101115 was removed from the Alameda Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 3, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-06002 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Campbell Soup Company, doing business as Campbell's -- https://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/ -- is an American processed food and snack company.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Dale Joseph Giali, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Phone: (213) 229-9509 Fax: (213) 625-0248 Email: dgiali@mayerbrown.com CANADA: Agrees to Spend Almost C$8-Bil. to Settle Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Kim Mackrael at marketwatch.com reports that the Canadian government said Friday it would spend close to 8 billion Canadian dollars, or the equivalent of $6.43 billion, to resolve class action lawsuits over unsafe drinking water in indigenous communities. If the agreement receives court approval, it would include C$1.5 billion in compensation for people who were unable to access clean drinking water and a pledge to spend at least C$6 billion to support reliable access to safe drinking water for indigenous communities, the government said. The agreement would also include C$400 million for an economic and cultural restoration fund for indigenous communities. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged when his Liberal government was elected in 2015 to eliminate all drinking water advisories in indigenous communities, but has so far fallen short of that goal. As of June, 51 long-term water advisories remained, covering 32 communities. The settlement agreement comes as Canada faces a reckoning over its past and current treatment of indigenous communities, following the discoveries of hundreds of unmarked graves near former boarding schools for indigenous children. The country's Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that abuse was common at the schools, which were meant to assimilate indigenous children into European-Canadian culture. "For hundreds of years now, Canada has enjoyed vast wealth while indigenous people lack access to even the basic necessities of life like drinkable water," said Emily Whetung, chief of the Curve Lake First Nation in the Canadian province of Ontario. "Today, we have come one step closer to reconciling this long history."[GN] CANADIAN HELICOPTERS: Passengers File Class Action Over Negligence ------------------------------------------------------------------ Frances Willick at CBC News reports that a New Glasgow, N.S., law firm has launched a class-action lawsuit after a helicopter went into freefall -- twice -- and came so close to crashing that a rotor blade struck the ocean when attempting to transport workers to an oil rig near Sable Island two years ago. The class action, filed by MacGillivray Law, alleges Canadian Helicopters Limited, the company operating the Sikorsky S-92A, was negligent. The suit claims damages for the suffering of the 11 passengers and their psychological injuries, including PTSD, as well as damages for loss of earning capacity and medical care and legal costs. The early part of the flight that departed Halifax Stanfield International Airport just before noon on July 24, 2019, was uneventful, even though visibility was poor that day due to fog. The helicopter made two attempts to land at the helideck on the offshore rig, but both were aborted because the captain and first officer couldn't see the deck, rig or horizon. It was on the third landing attempt, after the crew spotted the helideck -- but still could not see the horizon or the water -- that things went awry. As the helicopter approached the landing platform, the nose of the aircraft was too high, the helicopter was banking to the right, was approaching at a slower speed than standard and was in an increasingly rapid descent. But the crew didn't notice these hazards because one of them had disengaged the autopilot features that would have alerted them. Vortex ring state Although one of the crew eventually checked the dashboard and saw that the nose was too high, they still didn't notice the rapid descent or the slow speed of travel -- conditions that are perfect for a helicopter entering what's called a vortex ring state. That is when the air patterns around a helicopter change and the rotor can't keep the aircraft aloft and it begins to drop uncontrollably. That's what happened. "The helicopter was in an out-of-control tailspin dropping toward the ocean surface," the court document says. "This was all readily apparent to the class members, who were terrified and bracing themselves for a crash into the ocean surface." At one point, the helicopter, which was by then dropping at a rate of nine metres per second, came very close to crashing into the offshore rig. Now 30 metres above the water, the monitoring pilot put his hands and feet on the controls to brace himself and try to help the flying pilot level the aircraft before the expected impact with the ocean. Now 20 metres above the water, the passengers "felt the helicopter shake and yaw severely to the right," and "the screens and systems all went blank and alarms engaged." "At the point of near impact, the engines were throttled beyond limit, extremely loud, torqued at well over capacity," the statement of claim reads. "The class members could hear the engines screaming as ocean water sprayed all over the windows. . . . . The class members thought the helicopter was crashing into the ocean surface at high speed and that they were going to die." Robert Kenney, the representative plaintiff in the legal action, said: "If you can imagine your life passing before your eyes, everything was going crazy. Everybody on the chopper, there was a lot of screaming and hollering." Another passenger, Donald Shupe, said the drop to the water felt like it happened in seconds. "We went sideways and I smashed my head on the window and next thing you know I was looking at water," he said. "I looked at everybody else and I said, 'This must be our day.' . . . . I was vibrating inside because I didn't think we were actually going to pull out of this. I honestly thought this was it." Last-second reprieve All of a sudden, according to the statement of claim, "in the last small fraction of a second," because of the extremely high torque and the aircraft being banked so far to the right, the helicopter came out of the vortex ring state. "The helicopter stopped its drop at most just a couple of feet above the ocean surface as the landing gear and bottom made actual contact," the court document says. "The class members observed the end of the main propeller blade strike the ocean surface." The pilot then flew the helicopter, which was still in a tailspin, straight up to an altitude of about 411 metres as the crew continued to try to stabilize it. Then, the aircraft began falling again, out of control, and flew over Sable Island in this way until the pilot was able to regain control. Passengers traumatized The return trip to Halifax was "rough and noisy," says the statement of claim. "The class members were already in a state of extreme mental and physiological stress. The class members remained in a heightened state of arousal the entire flight back given the manner in which the helicopter was flying, noisily and jarringly, at a low altitude, with systems down and on autopilot." Kenney said he's been diagnosed with PTSD because of the incident, and he's not able to concentrate as well as he could in the past. "Seems like I'm always lost in space," said Kenney, who lives in Sheet Harbour, N.S. "I used to always be like a trivia champion . . . . and now as soon as somebody asks me a question, point blank, my mind is gone." Although Kenney did go offshore on two occasions since then, he recently turned down a job offer in the industry because he is too anxious about flying. He said he now has to work many more hours at his job on land to make up for the wages he's lost, which has affected his lifestyle and family. Shupe, of Triton, N.L., said he went back to work about a year after the incident, but was then laid off. He also said he lives with the memories of that day, and has nightmares about helicopter crashes. "I am not the same person today as I was two years ago. And I know if I don't have professional help, God forbid I don't know what's going to happen." Transportation Safety Board report The lawsuit alleges the company allowed recordings of conversations between the two pilots to be destroyed before they could be heard by investigators. An investigation by the Transport Safety Board of Canada found that the helicopter, which was removed from service after the incident, stopped just four metres above the water. The report also found that the company's operating procedures did not give flight crew enough guidance to ensure that their landing approaches were within industry-recommended standards, and did not warn of the hazards of overriding autopilot in poor visibility.[GN] CMRE FINANCIAL: St. George Suit Moved From C.D to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DINA ST. GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-00748, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01374-JLS-MDD to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using prerecorded message calls to collect debts, even after having been informed by recipients of those calls that it has reached the wrong person and telephone number. CMRE Financial Services, Inc. is a medical debt servicing and collections company, with its headquarters located at 3075 East Imperial Highway, Ste. 200, Brea, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Litvak, Esq. DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP 11500 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 477-5575 E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com - and – Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Klein Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN) This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its Class A common stock, whereby Coinbase began trading as a public company on or around April 14, 2021. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 20, 2021 Throughout the class period, Coinbase Global, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company required a sizeable cash injection; (2) the Company's platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base; and (3) as a result of the foregoing Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Learn about your recoverable losses in COIN: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form?id=18123&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] COINBASE GLOBAL: Rosen Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: COIN) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering") of the important September 20, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Coinbase securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Coinbase class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2127.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 20, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the Company's IPO were false and misleading and omitted to state that, at the time of the IPO: (1) Coinbase required a sizeable cash injection; (2) Coinbase's platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Coinbase class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2127.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] CONCHO RESOURCES: Faces Warwick Suit Over Price Share Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF WARWICK RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CONCHO RESOURCES INC., CONOCOPHILLIPS (SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CONCHO RESOURCES INC.), TIMOTHY A. LEACH, JACK F. HARPER, C. WILLIAM GIRAUD, BRENDA R. SCHROER, and E. JOSEPH WRIGHT, Case No. 4:21-cv-02473 (S.D. Tex,. July 30, 2021) is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Concho common stock from February 21, 2018 through July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is brought against Concho, ConocoPhillips as the Company's successor-in-interest having acquired Concho January 2021, and certain of Concho's officers and/or directors during the Class Period for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Concho was engaged in the acquisition, development, exploration, and production of oil and natural gas properties, primarily in the Permian Basin. In 2018, Concho planned and constructed the Dominator Project ("Dominator") in the Delaware Basin, part of the larger Permian Basin. Dominator, consisting of 23 wells, was incredibly large in scope. During the Class Period, Concho repeatedly touted to investors that the Company's transition to large-scale development projects, including Dominator, generated cost savings, optimized resource recovery, and was designed to mitigate well-spacing risks. As an extension of this "evolution" to large-scale development, the Defendants told investors that at Dominator in particular, the Company was engaging in "spacing tests" and "seeing the results [they] expect[ed]." However, despite Defendants' efforts to portray Dominator as a density test, the well spacing at Dominator was a highly reckless gamble of exorbitant cost premised on no reasonable basis to believe it would work as intended. Moreover, Defendants' portrayal of Dominator as an outlier compared to other projects in terms of spacing density was false and misleading. Indeed, unbeknownst to investors, current and upcoming 2018-2019 projects were also using aggressively dense well spacing, and therefore subject to the same risks, says the suit. Importantly, aggressively tight well spacing can create underground interference between the wells and permanently decrease production rates. Therefore, well spacing is material to investors. After the close of trading on July 31, 2019 and during the following trading day on August 1, 2019, the Defendants shocked the market by revealing the wells at Dominator were spaced "too tight." As a result, the Company disclosed that it had drastically reduced its total active rig count to avoid overshooting budgets and would be forced to scale down production targets for the rest of the year. Defendants also disclosed that moving forward, Concho would begin spacing all of its wells farther apart -- revealing at the same time that certain current and upcoming projects were "moderately more dense" in terms of spacing, the suit added. In response to the disclosure, an analyst at Jeffries in a report dated August 5, 2019, expressed frustration that while the Company had previously stated Dominator "was not representative of the company's development plans it turns out operations were not consistent with that message." Put simply, Concho's wager on Dominator and density testing in general was such an unmitigated failure that it would impact the entirety of the Company's 2019 operations and beyond. On this news, Concho shares declined approximately 22 percent in a single day on August 1, 2019, as the artificial inflation was removed from Company stock. As would be revealed following the end of the Class Period, it would take until 2020 to fully unwind the impacts of these "tests" at Dominator and elsewhere. As a result of the foregoing, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial prospects. Allegedly, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the well spacing at Dominator was aggressive and highly risky, and premised on no reasonable basis to believe it would work as intended. The Plaintiff purchased Concho common stock during the Class Period and was damaged as the result of Defendants' wrongdoing as alleged in this complaint. Concho Resources Inc. was a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration, incorporated & organized in Delaware and headquartered in Midland, Texas, with operations exclusively in the Permian Basin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com afatale@labaton.com CONDUENT INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid to Reopen NJ Securities Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE CONDUENT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-08237-SDW-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Andre M. Espinosa entered an order: 1. granting the Lead Plaintiff's request to reopen this action; 2. directing the Clerk of Court to mark this case open and restore it to the active docket of the Court; and 3. directing the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification be marked on the docket as a pending motion. On April 29, 2021, the Court entered an Order administratively terminating this action pending the outcome of mediation. The April 29, 2021 Order provided that this action may be reopened upon letter request by any party. on July 16, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a letter requesting that the matter be reopened and restored the Court's active docket. Conduent is an American business process services company headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. It was formed in 2017 as a divestiture from Xerox. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AasgFQ at no extra charge.[CC] CORMEDIX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix Inc. ("CorMedix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CRMD) securities between July 8, 2020 and May 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CorMedix investors have until September 20, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. In July 2020, CorMedix filed its New Drug Application ("NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for DefenCath, an antibacterial and antifungal solution, as a catheter lock solution with an initial indication for use of preventing certain catheter-related bloodstream infections. On March 1, 2021, CorMedix announced the NDA would not be approved "in its present form" due to "concerns at the third-party manufacturing facility." Moreover, the FDA "is requiring a manual extraction study to demonstrate that the labeled volume can be consistently withdrawn from the vials despite an existing in-process control to demonstrate fill volume within specifications." On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $5.98 per share, or 39.87%, to close at $9.02 per share on March 1, 2021. Then, on April 14, 2021, CorMedix announced it would have to take additional steps to meet the FDA's requirements for DefenCath's manufacturing process, including "[a]ddressing FDA's concerns regarding the qualification of the filling operation [that] may necessitate adjustments in the process and generation of additional data on operating parameters for manufacture of DefenCath." On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or 15.37%, to close at $7.93 per share on April 14, 2021. Then, on May 13, 2021, CorMedix announced that "[b]ased on our analyses, we have concluded that additional process qualification will be needed with subsequent validation to address the deficiencies identified by FDA." Among other things, the Company was required "to generate sufficient data to demonstrate that [the filling] process is a controlled process and is consistent with the agency's requirements for good manufacturing practice." On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or 19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 2021. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors the following: (1) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; (2) in light of the foregoing deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for CRBSIs in its present form; (3) Defendants had downplayed the true scope of the deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased CorMedix securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 20, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased CorMedix securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.[GN] CORMEDIX INC: Patrick Hits Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------- Robert Patrick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cormedix Inc., Khoso Baluch, Matthew David and Phoebe Mounts, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-14020 (D. N.J., July 22, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities laws. CorMedix is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases in the U.S. and internationally. Khoso Baluch, Matthew David and Phoebe Mounts are members of its Board of Directors. CorMedix's lead product candidate, DefenCath is an antibacterial and antifungal solution designed to prevent costly and dangerous catheter-related bloodstream infections. In July 2020, CorMedix completed submission of a New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for DefenCath as a catheter lock solution with an initial indication for patients with end-stage renal disease who are receiving hemodialysis via a central venous catheter. Patrick alleges that CorMedix failed to disclose deficiencies in DefenCath's manufacturing process and that the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath's New Drug Application in its present form. On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or 19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 2021. Patrick claims to have acquired Cormedix common stock at artificially inflated prices and lost when its share price went down. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165-0006 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com CURATION FOODS: Labor Law Firms File Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Curation Foods, Inc. ("Curation Foods") and Landec Corporation for allegedly failing to provide employees with legally compliant meal and rest periods. The Curation Foods and Landec Corporation class action lawsuit, Case No. 21CV02834, is currently pending in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here. According to the lawsuit, Curation Foods and Landec Corporation allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (5) provide wages when due. Under California law, every employer shall pay to each employee, on the established payday for the period involved, not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period, whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise. Hours worked is defined in the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Curation Foods and Landec Corporation allegedly required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Curation Foods and Landec Corporation failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock. As such, Curation Foods and Landec Corporation allegedly failed to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period. If you would like to know more about the Curation Foods and Landec Corporation lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom by calling (619) 255-9047. Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and employment law firms with offices located in California that dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices. Contact one of their attorneys if you need help with workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN] CVS HEALTH: Piescik Sues Over Hand Sanitizer Product's False Ad ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Piescik, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. CVS HEALTH, a Rhode Island corporation, Case 9:21-cv-81298-DMM (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2021) arises from the Defendant's false advertising, unfair and deceptive marketing practices, and materially misleading claims employed and disseminated in connection with the sale of its hand sanitizer (the "Product"). The complaint alleges that on the front of each Product, Defendant represents that the Product would kill virtually all germs. The CVS Original Scent Moisturizing Hand Sanitizer and related CVS brands advertise on their bottles, "Kills 99.99% of Germs." However, the Defendant's germ-fighting representation is false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public. CVS' marketing strategy has been successful, and the hand sanitizer is a popular product. But that success is built around messaging that is materially misleading and deceptive to consumers, lacks a factual basis, and recklessly omits material information, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff purchased the hand sanitizer Product from a local West Palm Beach CVS store in March of 2020. Defendant CVS Health is an American multinational consumer goods corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300 West Palm Beach, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 Facsimile: (561) 514-0905 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Daniel Faherty, Esq. TELFER, FAHERTY, & ANDERSON, PL 815 S. Washington Avenue, Suite 201 Titusville, FL 32780 Telephone: (321) 269-6833 Facsimile: (321) 383-9970 E-mail: CGuntner@ctrfa.com D&D PIZZA INC: Mason Hits Unreimbursed Expenses, Unpaid Min. Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATHY MASON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. D&D PIZZA, INC., and DAVID M. BUMPAS, Case No. 4:21-cv-00920 (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2021) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's Pizza stores. The complaint alleges that Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provide such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. Individual Defendant Bumpas is the owner and officer of Defendant D&D Pizza, Inc., an entity operating numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 210-2100 phone Fax: (214) 346-5909 fax E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Violates False Advertising Law, Traer Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ RONALD D. TRAER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., FERNANDO TAPIA DBA DOMINO'S PIZZA, SALMEX PIZZA INC., SALMAR PIZZA INC, JP PIZZA, INC and GAFE PIZZA INC. and DOES 1 throuh 25 inclusive, Case No. (July 30, 2021) alleges that the Defendants' representations, warranties, and statements that the Products are $5.99 per product when Domino’s charges more is unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct, is likely to deceive members of the public, and continues to this day, in violation of the California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the California’s False Advertising Law. The Defendant DOMINO'S owns "corporate" Domino's Pizza Stores and also has franchisees ("Franchises") who sell pizzas and other authorized products through delivery and carry-out services under the trade name Domino's Pizza. DOMINO'S offers franchises in the form of Traditional and Non-Traditional Domino's Pizza Stores and related concepts under the agreement entitled FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT, which is overseen by DOMINO'S Pizza Franchising LLC located at 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, DOMINO'S Franchising LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant 21 DOMINO'S. The Defendant DOMINO'S operates the corporately owned Domino's Pizza Stores. Defendant TAPIA and other Franchisees purchase and operate Domino's Pizza Store franchises from DOMINO's and its related entities pursuant to the terms of DOMINO'S "Franchise Agreement" (FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT). DOMINO'S is responsible for developing, establishing, promoting and carrying out DOMINO'S National Advertising for all Domino's Pizza Stores (corporate, Traditional Franchises, and Non-Traditional Franchises). The "Franchise Agreement" requires that Franchisees must contribute to the National Advertising Fund for the cost and expense of national advertising for the benefit of both Domino's Pizza Stores (corporate and franchised) and the Defendants through television ads, national campaigns, public announcement, newspapers and other means of advertising to the general public. DOMINO'S runs its national advertising through Domino's National Advertising Fund, Inc., says the suit. DOMINO'S PIZZA INC. is the parent company, directly or indirectly of all Domino's Pizza related entities including DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC, DOMINO'S Pizza Franchising, LLC and also DOMINO'S National Advertising Fund, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation which administers the collection and expenditures of the Advertising Fund from Franchisees like Defendant TAPIA for the purpose of National advertising for the Franchisees. DOMINO'S requires that Franchisees contribute no less than 2% of the weekly Royalty Sales to the cooperative. DOMINO'S can require a maximum combined contribution to the national advertising fund and local and regional advertising of 9% of the weekly Royalty Sales of the Store. DOMINO's Advertising Fund places advertising in any media. The coverage is typically national in nature. The Advertising is developed by DOMINO'S and its related entities in-house marketing department and national advertising agencies and other advertising partners. DOMINO'S also requires Franchisees to participate in local and regional advertising cooperatives for advertising and promotional programs administered by DOMINO'S and its related entities and/or other franchisees. Through its advertising, DOMINO'S AND TAPIA touts that it is an innovator and pioneer of "delivery ideas that make it easier and more convenient for our consumers. Domino's consumers are well aware that Domino's offers a variety of ways for its consumers to save money on Domino's pizzas and related products, because Domino's touts that it saves its consumers money by offering a variety of discounts through the use of its coupons by way of national marketing campaign that runs on a national, regional, and local level through the National Advertising Fund. Essentially, consumers of Domino's have become accustom to receiving discounts on Domino's products whether directly from the original price because of DOMINO's national marketing campaigns financed from the National Advertising Fund and run by DOMINO'S and its related entities. Among its many discounted programs is DOMINO'S and TAPIA'S Domino's "Mix & Match" ("Mix & Match Deal") 1 financed from the National Advertising Fund and run by DOMINO'S and its related entities., which has been in existence since (at least) 2009. Dominos has used a similar advertisement for its "Mix Defendants' representations, warranties, and statements that the Products are $5.99 per product when Domino's charges more is unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct, is likely to deceive members of the public, and continues to this day, added the suit. Plaintiff Traer seeks to represent a class defined as: "All persons in the United States who purchased the Products through Defendants' "Mix and Match" deal and are not subject to an arbitration agreement, at any time during the class period" (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their affiliates, employees, officers and directors, persons or entities that purchased the Products for resale, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Glugoski, Esq. 220 Halleck, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Hoorn Sues Over 4.17% Decline of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHIEL TEN HOORN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC. f/k/a DIAMOND EAGLE ACQUISITION CORP., JASON D. ROBINS, JASON K. PARK, JEFF SAGANSKY, and ELI BAKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06497 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding DraftKings' business, operations, and compliance policies with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in order to trade DraftKings securities at artificially inflated prices between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SBTech (Global) Limited had a history of unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly, DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed the company to dealings in black-market gaming; (iii) the foregoing increased the company's regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the company's revenues were, in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) accordingly, the benefits of the Business Combination Agreement were overstated; and (vi) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. When the truth emerged, DraftKings' stock price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share on June 15, 2021, damaging investors. DraftKings Inc., formerly known as Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp., is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company, with principal executive offices located at 222 Berkeley Street, 5th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Melissa Muller, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Fl. New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com mmuller@zlk.com DSW RESTAURANT: Faces Contreras Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZAIRA CONTRERAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DSW RESTAURANT, INCORPORATED D/B/A DOUBLE SHOE MEN'S CLUB; 3625 HIGHWAY 146, INCORPORATED; and ALLEN WHEAT, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00199 (S.D. Tex., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, and forced tipping & subsidization of ownership. The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at the Defendants' principal place of business located at 3625 Highway 146, Bacliff, Texas from approximately 2013 through November 2019. DSW Restaurant, Incorporated, doing business as Double Shoe Men's Club, is an owner and operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility, with its principal place of business at P.O. Box 241, Kemah, Texas. 3625 Highway 146, Incorporated is an owner and operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility, with its principal place of business at P.O. Box 241, Kemah, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com leigh@ellzeylaw.com EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of April 24 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions Inc. ("Emergent" or the "Company") (NYSE: EBS) against certain of its officers and directors. Recently a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against the Company on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Emergent from April 24, 2020 and April 16, 2021 (the "Class Period"). According to the filed complaint: (i) Emergent's Baltimore plant had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for massive contaminations; (ii) these longstanding contamination risks and quality control issues at Emergent's facility led to a string of FDA citations; (iii) the Company previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated from manufacturing standards; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore manufacturing site were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. Then on, July 30, 2021, Emergent said it has received inquiries and subpoenas from many U.S. authorities related to its abilities to manufacture COVID-19 bulk drug substance. If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Emergent, holding shares before April 24, 2020, you may have standing to hold Emergent harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are interested in learning more about the investigation, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. Additionally, if you are a current, long-term shareholder of Emergent, holding shares before April 24, 2020; you can [Click here to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] ENCHANCED RECOVERY: Jackin Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery Company LLC. The case is styled as Jill Jackin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC doing business as: Enhanced Resource Centers doing business as: ERC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00234-SMJ (E.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC -- https://ercbpo.com/ -- provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Jimenez Cunanan, Esq. DC LAW GROUP 12055 15th Ave NE 98125 Seattle, WA 98125 Phone: (206) 494-0400 Fax: (855) 494-0400 Email: matthew@dclawyers.com EQUANIMITY BEHAVIORAL: Vidaurre Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Paola Negron Vidaurre, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUANIMITY BEHAVIORAL SERVICES CO., a Florida Profit Corporation, and KELLY NEGRON, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-61522(S.D. Fla., July 25, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid and non-exempt employee from approximately August 2020 to May 12, 2021. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action asserting claims that the Defendant did not compensate her and other similarly situated employees for the time they spent performing off the clock work for the Defendants. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants willfully engaged in practices that denied them the applicable minimum wage and overtime wage at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages and liquidated damages, compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Equanimity Behavioral Services Co. operates a facility that provides care for the sick, the aged, or mentally or physically handicapped or gifted children, a preschool, elementary or secondary school, or an institution of higher education. Kelly Negron is an owner, manager and employer of EBS. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. BROCK II 10074 E. Bay Harbor Dr., Ste., 74D Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Tel: (305) 781-5030 E-mail: BrockLegalTeam@gmail.com ERIC BRADLEY: Hernandez-Sierra Bid for Class Cert. Tossed as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN HERNANDEZ-SIERRA v. WARDEN ERIC BRADLEY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00057-RDM-CA (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert D. Mariani entered an order that: 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice. 2. Petitioner's motion to amend is granted and the amended document is accepted as filed. 3. The motion to appoint class counsel and for class certification is dismissed as moot. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VwNrm7 at no extra charge.[CC] ERIC BRADLEY: Palmer Bid for Class Status Junked as Moot -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELDON PALMER v. WARDEN ERIC BRADLEY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00061-RDM-CA (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert D. Mariani entered an order that: 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice. 2. Petitioner's motion to amend is granted and the amended document is accepted as filed. 3. The motion to appoint class counsel and for class certification is dismissed as moot. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jkSApN at no extra charge.[CC] FINAL CLEANING: Zamora Sues Over Failure to Pay Sewers' OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILFREDO ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINAL CLEANING SEWER & DRAIN SERVICES, INC. and PATRICK ENGLISH, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04209 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from in or around June 2019 until in or around November 2020 as a sewer cleaner and to perform other miscellaneous duties. According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff worked approximately 66 or more hours per week and approximately 10 or more hours per week during his employment with the Defendants, the Defendants willfully failed to pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, as well as "spread of hours" pay at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit. Final Cleaning Sewer & Drain Services, Inc. provides sewer cleaning services. Patrick English owns and operates the company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 FIRST NATIONS: Settlement Reached Over Clean Drinking Water Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- discoverestevan.com reports that a nearly $8 billion settlement between the federal government and First Nations who launched a class-action lawsuit over clean drinking water has been reached. The announcement of the agreement in principle was made. The agreement in principle, which still needs to be approved by the courts, was announced by the Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Curve Lake First Nation and Neskantaga First Nation, along with Minister of Indigenous Services Marc Miller. The agreement addresses concerns identified by the First Nations in terms of clean drinking water. It includes $1.5 billion in compensation for individuals, the creation of a $400 million First Nation Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund, the commitment of at least $6 billion to support reliable access to safe drinking water and planned modernization of Canada's First Nations drinking water legislation. There are currently three long-term drinking water advisories affecting First Nations in Saskatchewan and 27 short-term drinking water advisories. The short-term advisories include 26 boil water advisories, as well as a do not consume advisory for Zagime Anishinabek First Nation. Across the country, there are 51 long-term drinking water advisories affecting 32 First Nations. [GN] FLINT, MI: Discusses Attorneys Fees in Water Crisis Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- toledoblade.com reports that how much money should the attorneys get that negotiated a settlement from the state in the Flint water crisis? We don't know, and may not know for weeks. But we know how much they want: $202 million. And that figure has prompted uproar and outrage and divided legal circles. "Pigs. These attorneys are greedy pigs," said one federal judge, who was unwilling to be quoted by name but who has presided over many multimillion-dollar settlements. But Powell Miller, a leading Michigan trial lawyer who has successfully argued many class action cases, disagrees. "Class action lawyers are easy targets, easy to attack. But what people don't realize is that they risk a lot. They spend thousands of hours and rack up enormous expenses, sometimes for years, before ever getting paid. "They sometimes have to borrow huge sums, and if they lose, if the case doesn't get certified as a class action, they don't get anything." You want lawyers who sue on behalf of their clients to have every incentive to fight as hard for them as they can, he said, adding that "defense lawyers, on the other hand, usually get a monthly paycheck, and usually get a higher hourly rate." Mr. Miller has had no involvement with the Flint cases. Virtually no one doubts that the Michigan state government seriously wronged the residents of Flint in 2014, when it forced them to switch to using toxic water from the Flint River. That water had many problems, the worst of which was that it corroded the pipes and caused many residents, including thousands of highly vulnerable children, to suffer lead poisoning. An army of lawyers sued on behalf of thousands of victims, and many of these cases were bundled into a class action suit. Last year, after prolonged battles, the state legislature agreed, almost unanimously, to settle the cases for $600 million in state money, plus an additional $41 million from other parties who were sued. That was the largest such award in state history and may sound like a lot of money, but there are so many victims that monetary awards for those who suffered most are likely to be small. But they may be even smaller if the attorneys who negotiated the settlement get as much as they are asking for. The settlement calls for two-thirds of the money to go to the most vulnerable victims — those children under the age of 6 who may have had their bodies and minds affected by the lead poisoning. But an analysis by Alexander Collingsworth in the Georgetown Environmental Law Review concluded if the money is evenly divided, "each person who was six or younger when they were exposed will receive just $36,281.25 for their . . . . permanent injury." That calculation apparently did not take legal fees into account. The burden on deciding what an appropriate amount of money for the lawyers should be, and how the money will be shared, is up to U.S. District Judge Judith Levy. She held hearings earlier this month in which both the attorneys and Flint residents were allowed to argue about what the proposed settlement should be. It wasn't even immediately clear how many lawyers are involved in the settlement, though a request for reimbursement of $7 million in expenses mentioned 41 attorneys from 24 law firms. There was little or no opposition to reimbursing the lawyers for these expenses. But there were vast differences as to how much their compensation should be for representing their clients. One Flint legislator, state Rep. John Cherry, said the fees were way out of line and told a reporter the lawyers should get more like 10 percent of the total, not the 30 percent they requested. However, a lawyer for the Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington argued that in settlements of this magnitude, attorneys have gotten an average of about 17 percent. But Corey Stern, a New York attorney involved in the case, argued vigorously in favor of lawyers getting the full $202 million. He said that many of the plaintiffs signed contracts pledging to give their lawyers 33 percent if they won, which is a standard contingency fee in such cases. Others, however, noted that there is such a thing as economies of scale, and in settlements of this magnitude, an award that large may seem obscene, especially when children who clearly have suffered irreversible brain damage seem unlikely to get enough money to address what may be a lifetime of incapacitating problems. Judge Levy did not say whether she would accept the fee proposal, or reduce it. Nor did she say how long it would take her to decide. She did say "I personally have a very hard decision to make." What we also don't know is whether she will, as is customary, appoint someone to oversee and decide on how the money will be shared out, either for the victims or the affected residents. What we do know is that the Flint water crisis of 2014-2016 is anything but over, when it comes to dealing with the fallout from an event that destroyed political careers and poisoned a city. Former Gov. Rick Snyder is only one of many former officials facing criminal indictment, and Flint, a city that has been in decline since the 1960s, is still suffering the aftereffects, with no end in sight. [GN] GARDA CL NORTHWEST: Gann Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JASON GANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GARDA CL NORTHWEST d/b/a GARDAWORLD, Case No. 2021CV32019, was removed from the District Court in Denver County, Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02069 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Garda CL Northwest Inc., doing business as GardaWorld, is a security and risk company, with a principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Leah E. Capritta, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 5000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 974-6656 Facsimile: (303) 974-6659 E-mail: leah.capritta@hklaw.com GENERAL DYNAMICS: Settlement in Loreto Suit Wins Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LORETO, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01366-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order granting renewed motion for preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement: On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff Loreto filed a putative class action and Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action complaint against the Defendant General Dynamics. On September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint in this case. In the FAC, the Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA, (2) failure to pay overtime wages under California Labor Code; (3) failure to timely pay wages at separation under California Labor Code; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code; and (5) failure to provide all premium wages under California Labor Code. The Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary Maximum Settlement Amount of $900,000, from which the following deductions would be made: (a) attorneys' fees up to $300,000 to compensate class counsel; (b) actual costs of $12,940; (c) service payment to Plaintiff up to $10,000; (d) settlement administration expenses up to $13,200; (e) PAGA payment to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency (LWDA) of $33,750 (75% of the $45,000 PAGA penalty); and (f) PAGA payment of $11,250 to PAGA members (June 26, 2018 through preliminary approval) (25% of the $45,000 PAGA penalty). General Dynamics provides information technology services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37irFFr at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Enters Class Certification Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SJUNDE AP-FONDEN and THE CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and JEFFREY S. BORNSTEIN, Case No. 1:17-cv-08457-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order: 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to depose Defendants' loss causation expert is extended to August 9, 2021; 2. The Defendants shall file any pre-motion letter requesting leave to file an early summary judgment motion on loss causation by or on August 9, 2021; 3. The Plaintiffs shall file any response to Defendants' pre- motion letter by or on August 16, 2021; and 4. The Defendants shall file any opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by or on August 30, 2021; 5. All other deadlines set forth in the Order shall remain in effect. 6. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants waive their rights to seek for each other or the Court additional adjournments or extensions of the above deadlines, and the entry into this Stipulation shall not waive, and the parties expressly preserve, all rights, claims, and defenses, other than the defense as to sufficiency of service. On February 26, 2021, the Court entered a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order setting forth deadlines related to (i) loss causation expert discovery and Defendants’ anticipated pre-motion letter requesting leave to file an early summary judgment motion on loss causation; (ii) class certification; and (iii) the pretrial conference. The parties have agreed to request that the deadline for Defendants to file any opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be extended by 10 days, to August 30, 2021; a pretrial conference is scheduled for August 12, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. General Electric Company is an American multinational conglomerate incorporated in New York State and headquartered in Boston. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yiKGn7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden are: Sharan Nirmul, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com The Counsel for Additional Plaintiff The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, are: Daniel Berger, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (610) 722-8501 E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com - and - Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 E-mail: sean.berkowitz@lw.com GRANDMAMA'S HOUSE: Underpays Childcare Professionals, Kerns Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ AISLYN KERNS, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANDMAMA'S HOUSE OF PRESCHOOL AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, INC. and JEFFREY BAILEY STANFILL, individually, and BRIDGETTE STANFILL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00569 (M.D. Tenn., July 27, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and non-exempt childcare professional. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated childcare professionals worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendants because they were regularly required to stay past the end of their scheduled shifts and work hours. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time they worked in excess of 40 per week. Allegedly, the Defendant would edit the time keeping records down to reflect 40 hours or less worked by the Plaintiff and other childcare professionals. Additionally, there were instances that their paychecks for a pay period were reduced to below federal minimum wage due to deductions taken out by the Defendants, the Plaintiff says. Grandmama's House of Preschool and Child Development, Inc. provides childcare and day care services. Jeffrey Bailey Stanfill and Bridgette Stanfill own and operate the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: rturner@jsyc.com rmorellu@jsyc.com - and – Nina H. Parsley, Esq. MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES 400 Professional Park Drive Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Tel: (615) 851-1776 Fax: (615) 859-7033 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com HANWHA TECHWIN: Illinois Court Dismisses Jacobs BIPA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, LEROY JACOBS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HANWHA TECHWIN AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21 C 866 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Jacobs brings a three-count putative class action complaint against the Defendant, alleging violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS Sections 14/1, et seq., ("BIPA"). Count I alleges a violation of Section 15(a), Count II alleges a violation of Section 15(b), and Count III alleges a violation of Section 15(d). The Defendant markets and sells video technology products, including security cameras manufactured by its parent company, Hanwha Techwin. The Plaintiff alleges that, in December 2020, he saw several of the Defendant's security cameras installed at the entrance of a T.J. Maxx store in downtown Chicago. He claims that he learned about the cameras' "ability to perform facial recognition" during that shopping trip. According to him, the Defendant collected his biometric data though facial recognition technology in the security cameras "to track, identify, and prosecute shoplifters." The Plaintiff faults the Defendant for failing to inform its "visitors" that it is collecting and storing biometric data, and alleges "upon information and belief" that defendant discloses such data, all in violation of BIPA. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "All individuals in the State of Illinois who had their facial geometry scans, biometric identifiers, and/or biometric information collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained, maintained, stored, disclosed, or disseminated by Defendant during the applicable statutory period." Enacted in 2008, BIPA protects Illinois residents' privacy interest in their biometric information. BIPA "imposes numerous restrictions on how private entities collect, retain, disclose and destroy biometric identifiers," such as fingerprints, retina scans, and face scans. Under the Act, any person 'aggrieved' by a violation of its provisions 'shall have a right of action against an offending party' and 'may recover for each violation.' The Plaintiff asserts claims against defendant under Sections 15(a), 15(b), and 15(d) of BIPA. Section 15(a) requires entities "in possession of" biometric data to develop a publicly available retention schedule and destruction deadline for the data. Section 15(b) requires entities that collect biometric data first to inform the subject in writing that they are doing so; state the "specific purpose and length of time for which" the data "is being collected, stored, and used;" and receive an executed written release authorizing them to collect the data. Finally, Section 15(d) prohibits entities "in possession of" biometric data from disclosing it, except in certain circumstances. The Defendant's response notes several crucial facts that the Plaintiff does not allege. For example, he does not allege that it installed the cameras, operated the cameras, or in any way accesses or controls T.J. Maxx's security system. Indeed, it notes that it has no interest in "prosecuting shoplifters" at T.J. Maxx. The Plaintiff also does not allege that defendant operates any systems or servers to store any information captured by the cameras. A full reading of the Plaintiff's complaint suggests that the Defendant's only alleged connection to those cameras was its role as the manufacturer and distributor. Discussion The Defendant has moved to dismiss all three counts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive such a motion, a complaint must contain "enough factual matter (taken as true)" to suggest that a plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." I. Section 15(b) of BIPA Unlike Sections 15(a), (c), (d), and (e) of BIPA -- all of which apply to entities "in possession of" biometric data -- Section 15(b) applies to entities that "collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain" biometric data. The parties appear to agree that mere possession of biometric data is insufficient to trigger Section 15(b)'s requirements. They dispute, however, whether Section 15(b) applies only to entities that "actively" collect biometric data. The Defendant argues that it does, and that the Plaintiff's allegations do not sufficiently plead that defendant itself actively collected his biometric data, or that of the putative class members. The Plaintiff responds that the Defendant is reading a nonexistent and more stringent requirement into the statute. Ultimately, Judge Gettleman holds that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that defendant collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained biometric data from plaintiff or the putative class members. In fact, a complete reading of the complaint makes clear that the Defendant is merely a third-party technology provider (that is, merely provided the cameras), and that the active collector and processor of the data is T.J. Maxx. This holding comports with other courts that have addressed Section 15(b) claims levied against third-party technology providers. For these reasons, Count II is dismissed. II. Sections 15(a) and 15(d) Sections 15(a) and 15(d) of BIPA apply to entities "in possession of" biometric data. 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (d). BIPA does not define "possession," see 740 ILCS 14/40, and courts have routinely used the ordinary definition of the word. In this context, possession occurs when someone "exercises any form of control over the data or held the data at his disposal." Judge Gettleman holds that like the plaintiff in Heard v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 440 F.Supp.3d 960, 963 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citing Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp., 129 N.E.3d 1197, 1199 (2019)), the Plaintiff does not provide any factual allegations that plausibly establish that the Defendant exercised control over his data or otherwise held his data at its disposal. And like the allegations concerning collection of data, most of the Plaintiff's allegations concerning possession merely parrot the statutory language. The complaint does not say whether the Defendant could freely access the data, or even how the Defendant allegedly received it. The Plaintiff's complaint fails to plead factual matter that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant was "in possession" of his biometric data, or that of putative class members. Judge Gettleman concludes that the Plaintiff's complaint contains no allegations of fact which, if true, suggest there is any basis to even suspect that the Defendant disseminated the biometric data at issue. The Court is not required to credit rank speculation. Consequently, the Judge grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I and Count III. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Gettleman grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/65c8t4dn from Leagle.com. HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, AR: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Middleton Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GARY MIDDLETON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-4112, (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Middleton alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA") by failing to pay overtime to a group of individuals who were similarly situated. Middleton brings the FLSA claims individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The Court has certified a collective action that includes all non-patrol detention officers/jailers employed by the Defendant since Aug. 1, 2015. Two individuals, Alvin Mills and Charles Maxwell, have filed consents to join the collective action. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay them proper overtime compensation. Pursuant to the FLSA, the Defendant elected to utilize the 171 hour per 28-day pay period overtime threshold for all employees of the Sheriff's Office. Sheriff's Office employees do not receive payment for overtime until they have exceeded 171 hours of time actually worked in a prescribed 28-day period. Prior to January 2018, the Defendant compensated its employees for overtime hours worked with a grant of compensatory time off at the rate of 1.5 hours for every hour of overtime worked. In January 2018, the Defendant changed its overtime compensation policy and began paying cash compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times the effective hourly rate of pay. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant did not fully compensate them for compensatory time off they had earned but not used prior to Jan. 1, 2018, when it switched to a cash compensation policy for overtime hours. The Defendant has submitted evidence that it issued a check to each Plaintiff on June 13, 2018, to compensate him for the compensatory time off earned prior to Jan. 1, 2018. The evidence shows that Middleton, Mills, and Maxwell endorsed and negotiated their checks. However, when asked about these checks in their depositions, Mills and Maxwell testified that they did not recall receiving a check for their compensatory time off. Middleton testified that he received the check but believes that the Defendant incorrectly withheld money from this check. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were paid for every hour reported on their timesheets. However, they claim that their timesheets do not accurately reflect the hours they worked and that they worked overtime hours for which they were not paid. The Defendant has submitted over 400 pages of timesheets and payroll data for the Plaintiffs showing that they were paid for all hours submitted on their timesheets. It argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiffs cannot offer proof of damages. The Plaintiffs argue summary judgment should be denied because factual disputes exist as to whether their timesheets were inaccurate and whether they were fully compensated for their compensatory time off accrued prior to January 2018. Discussion The Defendant is subject to FLSA provisions for public agencies engaged in law enforcement activities, which require it to pay overtime at a rate of one and one-half regular pay to non-exempt employees engaged in law enforcement for all hours worked in excess of 171 hours in a twenty-eight-day work period. The Plaintiffs claim that they were not paid for overtime hours worked that were not included on their timesheets. They also claim that they were not compensated for the compensatory time off earned but not used prior to 2018. "An employee who sues for unpaid overtime has the burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not properly compensated." A. Accrued Compensatory Time Off The Defendant contends that on June 13, 2018, it fully paid the Plaintiffs for all compensatory time off accrued and not used prior to Jan. 1, 2018. It has submitted images of cleared checks that were remitted to and negotiated/cashed by Gary Middleton, Charles Maxwell, and Alvis Mills as payment of their accrued compensatory time. The checks were endorsed by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant has also submitted the withholding breakdowns of these checks. Judge Hickey finds that both Mills and Maxwell testified that they did not recall receiving the checks, while Middleton claims he did not receive the full amount that was owed. However, the Plaintiffs' testimony is vague, and the Plaintiffs offer no specific facts in support of their general assertions that the Defendant did not fully pay them for the earned compensatory time off. On the other hand, the Judge finds that the Defendant has submitted proof that the Plaintiffs were paid by check in June 2018. Thus, no reasonable juror could believe that the Defendants were not paid for their compensatory time off. Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' claims regarding payment for accrued compensatory time off. B. Overtime Hours The Plaintiffs claim that they were not adequately compensated for the overtime hours they worked. The Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on this issue because the Plaintiffs have failed to put forth evidence sufficient to show the amount and extent of their work in excess of 171 hours in a 28-day work period. Judge Hickey agrees. She finds that the Plaintiffs have submitted contradictory testimony and bare assertions regarding their overtime hours. They use vague terms, such as "sometimes" and "a lot of times," to describe the amount of overtime hours worked but not compensated for. When asked by his attorney to estimate the number of hours worked in a two-week time period, Mills testified that he worked an average of 180-185, which the Court assumes was a misunderstanding of the question. Maxwell estimated that in a two-week period he worked on average three to four overtime hours for which he was not compensated. Middleton recalled two instances in which he worked 75 overtime hours in a 28-day period but stated that he was paid for some of the overtime hours worked. He provided no other details regarding these instances. The Plaintiffs provided these estimates without a meaningful explanation of how they arrived at these estimates. The Plaintiffs claim that the timesheets do not accurately reflect the number of hours they actually worked. However, at various times, the Judge finds the Plaintiffs testified that the timesheets were in fact accurate. There is no evidence as to specific weeks that Plaintiffs worked overtime for which they were not compensated, and the Plaintiffs do not have notes or other documents regarding their hours that they could compare to the business records kept by Defendant regarding their hours. Even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Judge says, the evidence is conclusory, inconsistent, not supported by specific facts, and insufficient to allow a jury to determine the amount and extent of alleged overtime work or to award damages. The Plaintiffs have failed to provide any evidence of actual damages. Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' claims regarding unpaid overtime hours. Conclusion For the reasons she stated, Judge Hickey granted the Motion for Summary Judgment. She dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. Plaintiff Middleton's AMWA claims are dismissed with prejudice. Judgment will be entered separately. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/sjx4m5jd from Leagle.com. ISLAND EXTERIOR: Choukroun Sues Over Design Associates' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC CHOUKROUN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISLAND EXTERIOR FABRICATORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04280 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Massachusetts General Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated design associates overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to furnish accurate wage statements. Mr. Choukroun worked for the Defendant as a design associate from November 12, 2018 through March 12, 2020 at the Defendant's office located in Boston, Massachusetts, and then from March 13, 2020 through July 1, 2021 at the Defendant's office located in New York, New York. Island Exterior Fabricators LLC is a company that provides façade design and installation services, with its principal place of business located at 1101 Scott Avenue, Calverton, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baker Sues Over Adulterated Sunscreen Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER BAKER, ANNETTE NOKES, ROBERT BOTTERILL, SOPHIA PORTER, ANNA SWARTZ, MIKE XAVIER, BRIAN SLAFTER, HEIDI HUMPHREYS, FRANK ORTEGA, and MICHAEL TAILLARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-14421-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and other state consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen products. The Defendant marketed its products as safe and healthy, but contrary to the representations, the sunscreen products contain benzene, a harmful carcinogen. The presence of benzene rendered the sunscreen products unsafe, adulterated, and misbranded. Had the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes known the truth, they would not have purchased the products, the suit says. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer products based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C. 5 Becker Farm Rd. Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com - and – Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hellner Suit Moved from State Ct. to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as WAYNE HELLNER, an Individual and Personal Representative of Decedent NOGA HELLNER; BRYAN COHEN, an Individual, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV18661 (Filed May 15, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 19, 2021. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05827-SB-JDE to the proceeding. This state court action is a civil action alleging negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, strict liability -- design defect, strict liability -- failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud -- intentional misrepresentation, fraud -- concealment, negligent misrepresentation, loss of consortium, wrongful death, and survival action. The Plaintiffs seek past and future general damages; past and future economic and special damages; loss of earnings and impaired earning capacity; medical expenses, past and future; punitive or exemplary damages; loss of consortium damages; funeral expenses; attorney's fees; costs of the suit incurred; pre-judgment interest as provided by law; and any other relief the Court deems necessary, just and proper. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer packaged goods.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com - and - Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: (213) 430.3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com JUUL LABS: Bayard School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ---------------------------------------------------------------- BAYARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05964 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Bayard Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 726 4th Avenue in Bayard, Nebraska. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Murrieta District Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05940 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Murrieta Valley Unified School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 41870 McAlby Court in Murrieta, California. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, New Glarus School Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- NEW GLARUS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05963 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. New Glarus School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1701 2nd Street in New Glarus, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Tuslaw Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ TUSLAW LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05943 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Tuslaw Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 1835 Manchester Avenue Northwest in Massillon, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: East Jackson Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction --------------------------------------------------------------- EAST JACKSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05944 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. East Jackson Community School District is a unified school district with its offices located on North Sutton Road in Jackson, Michigan. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Maine School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT 11, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05960 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Maine School Administrative District 11 is a unified school district with its offices located at 150 Highland Avenue in Gardiner, Maine. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Faces Yale Suit Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Mich. ------------------------------------------------------------------- YALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05961 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Yale Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 198 School Drive in Yale, Michigan. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Fairless School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------- FAIRLESS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05947 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Fairless Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 11885 Navarre Road Southwest in Navarre, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Jackson School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACKSON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05954-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Jackson Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 7602 Fulton Drive in Massillon, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Elgin School District Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELGIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05958 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Elgin Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 501 K Street in Elgin, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Massillon School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- MASSILLON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05948-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Massillon City School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 930 17th Street Northeast in Massillon, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Minerva School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic -------------------------------------------------------------- MINERVA LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05952 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Minerva Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 406 East Street in Minerva, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Parkview School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Wis. --------------------------------------------------------------- PARKVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05962 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Parkview School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 106 West Church Street in Orfordville, Wisconsin. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Sandy Valley Sues Over High E-Cigarette Use Among Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANDY VALLEY LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05941 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Sandy Valley Local School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 5362 State Route 183 Northeast in Magnolia, Ohio. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com JUUL LABS: Shawnee District Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAWNEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05957 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit says. Shawnee Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 326 North Union Avenue in Shawnee, Oklahoma. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-5945 Facsimile: (619) 525-7672 E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com LEGACY SUPPLY: Faces Ramos Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. LEGACY SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES II, INC, Case No. (ILL. Cir., Dupage Cty., July 19, 2021) is a class action complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the Defendant to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois. While doing so, Plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois. The Plaintiff contends that he was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that operated, at least in part, by scanning Plaintiff’s hand. As an employee, he was required to scan at least one hand, multiple times, so Defendant could create, collect, capture, construct, store, use, and/or obtain a biometric template for the Plaintiff. Allegedly, the Defendant used Plaintiff's biometrics as an identification and authentication method to track his time, potentially with the help of a third-party vendor. The Defendant subsequently stored Plaintiff's biometric data in its database(s). According to the complaint, while most establishments and employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required that employees have hand(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards --which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax, Uber, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this highly personal and private information, added the suit. Legacy Supply Chain Services provides logistics services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. Adam Florek, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com plesko@peifferwolf.com aflorek@peifferwolf.com LG BEST: Faces Lopez Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. LG BEST BUY CARPET, INC., Case No. (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., July 19, 2021) is a class action suit seeking statutory damages and other equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and class members are subject to the unlawful biometric scanning and storage practices of the Defendant Best Buy. As past and present employees of the Defendant, Plaintiff and class members were required to provide it with their personalized biometric indicators and the biometric information derived therefrom ("biometric data"). Specifically, Defendant collects and stores its employees fingerprints and requires all the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine. Following the capture of their employees' biometric data, Defendant allegedly uses this data to compare the future scans of their employees' fingerprints into a punch-clock device. The punch-clock device scans each fingerprint and confirms that the employee punching in to work is who they claim to be. The collection of the punch-clock fingerprint entries is then used to confirm employees' presence. The Plaintiff and class members have not been notified where their fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information. As part of this process, the Defendant recorded and stored certain employees' fingerprint biometrics using fingerprint-scanning computer technology. As part of this process, the Defendant associated employees' biometric data with their personal identifying information, such as name and address, added the suit. The Defendant did not obtain Plaintiff's or class members' written consent to record, collect, obtain, and/or store Plaintiff's and class members' biometric data. The Defendant did not also obtain Plaintiff's or class members' written consent to capture and store Plaintiff's and class members' biometric data, alleges the suit. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (773) 831-8000 E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com LIFESTYLE LEGAL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Legal Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- news24.com reports that in 2019, City Press received numerous complaints from readers about the behaviour of Lifestyle Legal, which was deducting money from their bank accounts for "legal services". If payments were not made, Lifestyle Legal would threaten legal action and blacklisting. City Press raised these complaints with the National Credit Regulator, the National Consumer Commission and the Payments Association of SA. Lifestyle Legal was the business behind 19 "loan finder" websites, which offered a service to source a loan for consumers. Consumers had to pay a monthly fee for services that, depending on the website, cost between R88 and R199 a month. Loans were not provided, but consumers found themselves on the hook for the monthly services. Consumers who are able to reverse these debits begin to receive a barrage of threats and harassment from the relevant company. Court application If they tried to cancel, they were told they had agreed to a contract; and if they reversed the debit order, they were harassed and threatened with blacklisting. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slowly. However, the Stellenbosch University (SU) Law Clinic has successfully brought a class action application against Lifestyle Legal on behalf of thousands of defrauded consumers. The SU Law Clinic filed the certification application with the Cape Town High Court on September 13 2019, and the ruling by that court was made. In its application, the clinic stated that it "had been alerted to complaints from consumers concerning websites related to a company called Lifestyle Legal". "These websites apply dark pattern marketing methods to misleadingly appear to offer loans and/or free loan-finding services. Consumers who frequent these websites are induced to conclude ‘agreements' for unwanted services and are shocked when they realise amounts are being deducted from their bank accounts. "Consumers who are able to reverse these debits begin to receive a barrage of threats and harassment from the relevant company, which also threatens to blacklist or take legal action against consumers in the event that consumers do not make payment in terms of the agreements." The clinic argues that Lifestyle Legal's behaviour is unfair under the Consumer Protection Act [CPA] and that "their demands for and/or collection of payment are unconscionable in terms of section 40 of the CPA, or alternatively unlawful under the common law". According to SU Law Clinic senior attorney Stephan van der Merwe, the class action will enable the clinic to request "restoration of moneys illegally debited and compensation for resulting losses on behalf of thousands of consumers who were affected by the respondents' conduct". What do you do if you have been a victim of Lifestyle Legal? Van der Merwe has confirmed that the Cape Town High Court has certified that the following consumers will automatically form part of the class action against Lifestyle Legal and their websites: "All persons who have had any monies debited from their bank accounts and/or who have been harassed and threatened in connection with any demand for or collection of payment by any of the respondents at any time from May 20 2015 to date on the basis of their having concluded purported agreements with any of the respondents through any of the websites listed below: https://www.loantrackersa.co.za https://www.loanspottersa.co.za https://www.loanmatchsa.co.za https://wwwloanchoicesa.co.za https://www.loanquestsa.co.za https://www.loanconnectorsa.co.za https://www.loanhubsa.co.za https://www.loanzones.co.za https://www.loanlocatorsa.co.za https://www.loanscoutsa.co.za https://www.loantracer.co.za "Should you wish to not be a member of the class action, you may opt out of it by notifying the class action attorneys of record, the Stellenbosch University Law Clinic, by no later than October 1. "If you do not opt out of the class, you will form part thereof without the need to inform us accordingly. We would advise that you maintain your own records of your dealings with the relevant website and that you check in on our webpage and follow our social media on a regular basis for updates on the case."[GN] MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked for Call Center Agents ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAREY THOMAS, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAXIMUS, INC. Case No. 3:21-cv-00498 (E.D. Va., July 30, 2021) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 206, 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA"), the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA" or "Kentucky Act"), the Louisiana Revised Statutes ("LWPA" or "Louisiana Wage Payment Act"), Mississippi common law, Missouri common law, and Texas common law. The Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are asserted as a collective action under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), while the additional state law claims are asserted as class actions under Federal Rule Plaintiffs' Original Class/Collective Action Complaint of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are those similarly situated persons who have worked for MAXIMUS in call centers throughout the United States, at any time during the relevant time period(s) and have not been paid for all hours worked nor the correct amount of overtime in violation of state and federal law. Specifically, MAXIMUS has enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its non-exempt hourly call-center employees -- Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members -- to perform work off-the-clock and without pay in violation of state and federal law, says the suit. MAXIMUS's alleged illegal company-wide policy has caused Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation each workweek. Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, added the suit. Maximus Inc., trademarked as MAXIMUS, is an American outsourcing company that provides business process services to government health and human services agencies in the United States, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev Antell, Esq. Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com MERRICK GARLAND: Denial of Murphy Class Status Bid Endorsed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES E. MURPHY, v. MERRICK GARLAND, et al., , Case No. 1:21-cv-00070-CCC-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline Mehalchick recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class be denied without prejudice to being brought at a later time. This case involves a pro se plaintiff, James E. Murphy, who has filed the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1331(2) and 1343. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AauRzo at no extra charge.[CC] MUFG UNION BANK: Taylor Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOZETTE D. TAYLOR, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21 ST CV 27530 (Cal. Superior Ct., July 27, 2021) is a representative action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. PAGA permits "aggrieved employees" to bring a lawsuit as a representative action on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other current and former aggrieved employees, to recover civil penalties and address an employer's violations of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges that Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: (a) failure to accurately pay overtime wages as required by Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 (b) failure to pay timely wages required by Labor Code sections 203, 204 and (c) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements as required by Labor Code section 226. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in their Torrance and Lakewood, California branches, in March 2010 through July 2020, as a Non-Exempt Employee, working as a Branch Service Officer. Defendants operate at various store locations throughout the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. 9880 Research Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Dugan Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DUGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, , Case No. 1:21-CV-00341-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting relief from the 90 day deadline for filing motion for class certification and the Court set deadline at a later date. The Plaintiff commenced action April 30, 2021 against Defendant Nationstar Mortgage for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA), the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), negligence, and conversion. On July 26, 2021, Counsel for Plaintiff contacted Counsel for Defendant for consent to the Court modifying the 90-day period in LR 23.1(b). Defendant consents to the relief requested of extending Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification, and reserves all objections as to scope of discovery and the propriety of certification. The Plaintiff requires written discovery and deposition testimony to satisfy burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Nationstar offers mortgage services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AefTbK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. Asa C. Edwards, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD N.C. Bar No. 46000 7706 Six Forks Rd., Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com aedwards@maginnishoward.com - and - Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com NEW SCHOOL: First Amended Amable Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH AMABLE and KAITLYN AMABLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NEW SCHOOL, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-3811 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Elizabeth Amable and Kaitlyn Amable bring the putative class action against The New School, alleging that the Defendant's transition to online classes in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic deprived students of the educational experience for which they had bargained. The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendant for (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) conversion, and (4) money had and received. In January 2020, Plaintiff Kaitlyn Amable ("Amable") began the spring 2020 semester as an undergraduate student at The New School, a private university in New York City that enrolls over 10,000 students and offers approximately 80 "different degree/diploma programs and majors." Amable was pursuing a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Defendant's "Communication Design" program, which "relies extensively on in-person instruction, peer collaboration, and access to the Defendant's facilities." Amable and her mother, also a Plaintiff in the Action, collectively paid the Defendant approximately $15,000 in tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester. Although the spring semester began on Jan. 21, 2020 and proceeded unremarkably for the next eight weeks, the COVID-19 pandemic brought normal university operations to an abrupt halt in mid-March. The Defendant suspended in-person teaching for the remainder of the spring semester. Thus, from March 12 until the end of the semester on May 11, all classes were conducted online. The Plaintiffs allege that by shifting its instruction to an online format, the "Defendant did not deliver the educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that they and the putative class contracted and paid for." In other words, the Plaintiffs contend that under their contractual agreement with the Defendant, they agreed to pay tuition and fees in exchange for in-person academic instruction and related services. According to the Plaintiffs, the transition to online instruction not only violated their contractual agreement with the Defendant, but also produced a learning environment that was "subpar in practically every aspect." In particular, they point to the "lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty," as well as the lost "opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique." They argue that the remote instruction offered during the pandemic "was not even remotely worth" the amount they contracted for and paid under the expectation that classes would be taught in-person. Yet, despite allegedly violating its contractual agreement with the Plaintiffs and providing an inferior alternative to regular, in-person instruction, the Defendant has not refunded "any" of the tuition or fees the Plaintiffs paid for the spring 2020 semester. The Plaintiffs maintain that although the Defendant may "not have had a choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services it did not provide." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs brought claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) conversion, and (4) money had and received on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. They seek disgorgement of a pro-rated portion of tuition and fees proportionate to the amount of time that classes were offered online "and campus services ceased being provided." The Plaintiffs also seek an order certifying a class and subclass under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, an order of restitution "and all other forms of equitable monetary relief," any injunctive relief deemed proper, and an order awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to the putative class counsel. The Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on May 15, 2020, and their First Amended Complaint on Sept. 2, 2020. On Sept. 16, 2020, the Defendant filed a pre-motion letter seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss, to which the Plaintiffs responded the following week. Following a pre-motion conference on Oct. 7, 2020, the Court adopted a briefing schedule for the instant Motion. Pursuant to this schedule, the Defendant filed the instant Motion and supporting papers on Nov. 20, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition papers on Dec. 23, 2020, and, after receiving leave to file an oversized brief, the Defendant filed its Reply on Jan. 7, 2021. On Feb. 2, 2021, the Defendant provided notice of supplemental authority supporting the instant Motion. On March 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs offered supplemental authority in opposition to same. On March 31, 2021, the Defendant responded to the Plaintiffs' proffer of supplemental authority and offered additional authority in support of its Motion. Finally, the Defendant submitted an additional notice of supplemental authority on April 26, 2021. Analysis The Plaintiffs' principal claim is that the Defendant breached a contractual obligation to "provide in-person educational services, experiences, opportunities, and other related services" when it transitioned to online classes and modified its operations in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the alternative, they also assert claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received. 1. Educational Malpractice As a threshold matter, Judge Karas considers the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs have raised impermissible "educational malpractice" claims. "Educational malpractice" claims, which "ask the Court to involve itself in the subjective professional judgments of trained educators," are "not cognizable under New York law." Courts have therefore "refused to substitute their judgment for that of university officials or to review the day-to-day administration of academic policies. When the "essence of the complaint is that the school breached its agreement to provide an effective education," or the plaintiffs ask a court "to evaluate the course of instruction" or "review the soundness of the method of teaching that has been adopted by an educational institution," a court must dismiss the complaint. Although students may still plead a viable breach of contract claim against their college or university where the institution is alleged to have breached a specific promise, plaintiffs may not survive a motion to dismiss by packaging an educational malpractice claim as a claim for breach of contract. In the case, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract and other claims are merely "repackaged educational malpractice claims." Judge Karas opines that the Defendant's argument has some merit, particularly to the extent the Plaintiffs draw explicit comparisons between the alleged quality of in-person versus online courses. As noted, the Plaintiffs assert that the post-pandemic instruction offered online was "in no way the equivalent of the in-person education which they contracted and paid for," nor was it "remotely worth" the charged tuition. To the extent the Plaintiffs ask the Court to evaluate the quality of a particular method of instruction, the Judge will not "enter the classroom and determine whether the judgments and conduct of professional educators were deficient." 2. Breach of Contract As a general matter, "to state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege the existence of an agreement; adequate performance of the contract by the plaintiff; breach of contract by the defendant; and damages." The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have not identified a specific promise in which it agreed to provide exclusively in-person instruction, and that, even if there were such a promise, Plaintiffs cannot adequately plead the breach or damages elements of their contract claim. The Defendant also argues that this claim should be dismissed under the doctrines of acceptance and impossibility of performance. Judge Karas dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim to the extent this claim is based on the Defendant's alleged promise to provide exclusively in-person classes. Because he inds that the Plaintiffs have failed to "identify a specifically designated and discrete promise" to this effect, the Judge need not reach the Defendant's arguments regarding breach, damages, impossibility of performance, acceptance, or its reservation of rights. To the extent the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is premised on the Defendant's failure to provide access to in-person "services, facilities," and other "opportunities" in exchange for mandatory student fees, the claim must still be dismissed, albeit for different reasons. The Plaintiffs do not allege that the Defendant charged a lesser amount for an online version of the same program in which Amable was enrolled. 3. Unjust Enrichment The Plaintiffs bring an unjust enrichment claim in the alternative to their contract claim. They allege that the Defendant has retained tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester despite failing to provide "the education, experience, and services for which the tuition and fees were collected, making its retention unjust under the circumstances." Judge Karas opines that because the Parties do "not dispute that they shared a contractual relationship" and because the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is "indistinguishable from their contract claim," he dismisses the unjust enrichment claim. The Plaintiffs' "unjust-enrichment claim aims to recover the same payments (tuition and fees) as their contract-breach claim and is based on the same allegedly breaching conduct." Likewise, the Parties do not dispute that they shared a contractual relationship, there is an implied contract between a student and her college or university. 4. Money Had and Received Finally, the Plaintiffs have also brought a claim for money had and received. Like unjust enrichment, a cause of action for money had and received "is one of quasi-contract." Money had and received has been described as "an obligation which the law creates in the absence of agreement when one party possesses money that in equity and good conscience the party ought not to retain and that belongs to another." Where the parties are in a contractual relationship and the Plaintiff's claim for money had and received "merely duplicates a defective breach of contract claim," courts will dismiss the claim for money had and received. Accordingly, for the same reasons he is dismissing the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, Judge Karas also dismisses their claim for money had and received. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Karas granted the Defendant's Motion. Because it is the first adjudication of the Plaintiffs' claims on the merits, the First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. To the extent the Plaintiffs have a good faith basis for filing a second amended complaint, they must do so within 30 days of the date of the Opinion & Order. Failure to properly and timely amend will result in dismissal of the First Amended Complaint with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/fye4z468 from Leagle.com. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. -- aleslie@bursor.com -- Sarah Westcot, Esq. -- swestcot@bursor.com -- Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., in New York City, Counsel for Plaintiffs. Jonathan M. Kozak, Esq. -- Jonathan.Kozak@jacksonlewis.com -- Isaac J. Burker, Esq. -- Isaac.Burker@jacksonlewis.com -- Susan D. Friedfel, Esq. -- Susan.Friedfel@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., in White Plains, NewY, Counsel for Defendant. NORMAN BARWIN: Agrees to $13M Settlement Over Fertility Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ theguardian.com reports that hundreds of victims of a disgraced Canadian fertility doctor, including more than a dozen children conceived using his sperm, are set to share a proposed $13.375m (GBP7.707m) class-action settlement - the first of its kind in the world. An Ontario court certified a class action suit against Ottawa-based Norman Barwin. The legal action was first launched in 2016. For decades, Barwin was a highly sought after fertility doctor - dubbed "Baby God" for his success rate - and was even awarded the Order of Canada. But nearly four decades ago, couples began to question his methodology. In 1989, Davina and David Dixon sought Barwin's help to conceive. They grew suspicious after their daughter, Rebecca, did not resemble her parents. When she developed celiac disease - in spite of nobody else in the family suffering from the illness - her parents approached Barwin for a DNA sample. The doctor refused to comply, but the Dixons were able to compare Rebecca's DNA with that of another of Barwin's patients - and found a match. At 25, she learned that Barwin was her biological father. "I was in shock. Something inside me shifted. It made me feel like my existence was something to be ashamed of," Dixon told the Ottawa Citizen in 2019. Barwin is alleged to have told couples that the male partner's sperm would be used. Instead, they were unknowingly given random samples, and in some cases Barwin's own sperm. Barwin did not notify his patients of the errors, leaving them to discover years later the truth about their children's paternity. Under the proposed settlement, former patients and children will be eligible for up to C$50,000 ( GBP29,000) in damages. A judge must approve the settlement before any money is made available. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario suspended Barwin in 2013 after he admitted to inseminating four women using the wrong sperm. He resigned his medical licence in 2014. In 2019, Barwin was deemed incompetent by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which described the former doctor's behaviour as "beyond reprehensible" and said the damage he caused will last for generations. "It is the most egregious violation of a patient's trust. These patients came to Dr Barwin and trusted him to help them start a family," said Carolyn Silver, the college's senior counsel. The college ordered him to pay costs of C$10,370. The civil lawsuit also calls for a DNA database to be set up to help children identify their father or discover any siblings. It will also help men who stored sperm with Barwin determine if it had been used without their permission.[GN] OATLY GROUP: Faces Bentley Suit Over 7.8% Drop of Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCESCA BENTLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OATLY GROUP AB, TONI PETERSSON, CHRISTIAN HANKE, FREDRIK BERG, STEVEN CHU, ANN CHUNG, BERNARD HOURS, HANNAH JONES, MATTIAS KLINTEMAR, PO SING (TOMAKIN) LAI, ERIC MELLOUL, BJORN OSTE, FRANCES RATHKE, YAWEN WU, and TIM ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06485 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially false and misleading registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about Oatly's financial metrics, sustainability, and growth in China in order to trade Oatly's American Depositary Shares (ADSs) at artificially inflated prices between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that during the Class Period, Oatly (a) overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and market share financial metrics; (b) overstated its sustainability practices and impact; (c) exaggerated its growth in China; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its operations, business, and prospects were misleading during the Class Period. When the truth emerged, the price of Oatly ADSs allegedly fell 2.8%, closing at $20.54 per ADS on July 14, 2021 and 5.16%, closing at $19.48 per ADS on July 15, 2021, a two-day decline of 7.8%, damaging investors. Oatly Group AB is an oatmilk company with its headquarters in Sweden. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com OATLY GROUP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of September 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ: OTLY) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 24, 2021 No obligation or cost to you. Learn more about your recoverable losses in OTLY: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form?id=18122&from=5 Oatly Group AB NEWS - OTLY NEWS CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Oatly Group AB made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Oatly overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and market share financial metrics; (b) the Company overstated its sustainability practices and impact; (c) the Company exaggerated its growth in China; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its operations, business, and prospects were misleading during the Class Period. WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a loss in Oatly you have until September 24, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Oatly securities during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees. HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information about the OTLY lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click this link. About Klein Law J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] OATLY GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Oatly Group AB ("Oatly" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTLY) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-06485, is on behalf of all purchasers of American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Oatly between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021 (the "Class Period"), against Oatly and certain of its officers and/or directors, for violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act" or "Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Oatly securities during the Class Period, you have until September 24, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Oatly describes itself as the world's original and largest oatmilk company. It is organized under the laws of Sweden. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made material misrepresentations concerning the following: Oatly (a) overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and market share financial metrics; (b) overstated its sustainability practices and impact; (c) exaggerated its growth in China; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its operations, business, and prospects were misleading during the Class Period. Oatly held its initial public offering ("IPO") in the United States on or around May 20, 2021, offering and selling 84,376,000 American Depositary Shares (including 19,688,000 from certain shareholders) at a price of $17 per share. Each ADS represents one Oatly ordinary share. The IPO raised $1.4 billion for the Company. Two months later, on July 14, 2021, before the markets opened, short seller Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") issued a report entitled, "Sour on an Oat-lier Investment" (the "Spruce Point Report" or the "Report"). The Report brought to light a number of improprieties at Oatly, including improper accounting practices and greenwashing (making the Company's product appear more sustainable than it actually is), among other issues. Over the next days, a number of media outlets reported on the Spruce Point Report and its allegations about Oatly. As this news hit the market, the price of Oatly ADSs fell 7.8% over two trading days, falling from its close price of $21.13 on July 13, 2021, to a close price of $19.48 on July 14, 2021, on unusually high trading volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN] OHIO: Cooper & Damschroder Dismissed From Heyward v. AOCI & ORDC ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Lyle M. Heyward, Plaintiff, v. Heather Cooper, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-2499 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, (i) grants Defendants Heather Cooper and Allysa Damschroder' motion to dismiss the claims asserted against them, and (ii) denies Heyward's motion for an order to show cause. Defendants Cooper and Damschroder are employees of Aramark Correctional Services, which provides food services at Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution ("AOCI") facility and other facilities of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Defendants Cooper and Damschroder have filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted against them by pro se Plaintiff Heyward. Heyward did not file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss and the deadline for doing so has passed. He has filed a motion for an order to show cause, alleging certain individuals (who are employed at the Marion Correctional Institution but not named as Defendants in the litigation) have harassed him and attempted to interfere with the pursuit of his claims in this and other cases. Mr. Heyward filed a purported class action 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint, naming 13 other inmates as Plaintiffs, and alleging various individuals employed by the AOCI and ODRC have engaged in a variety of actions that have violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional and civil rights, as well as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Ohio Valentine Anti-Trust Act. Judge Helmick previously ruled Heyward cannot assert claims on behalf of other inmates, whether named or as part of a class while proceeding pro se. He also denied Heyward's motion to deem service had been perfected on all of the named Defendants and ordered him perfect service no later than Nov. 20, 2020. The Judge granted Heyward's motion for an extension of that deadline until Dec. 16, 2020, and Heyward subsequently filed certified mail receipts for 22 of the named Defendants. Mr. Heyward alleges Damschroder is an "Administrative Assistant in the Prisoner's Cafe/Chow Hall/Kitchen." Cooper, as the food service director, "is responsible for overseeing and managing foodservice operations at AOCI, including scheduling, inventorying, ordering, hiring, and delegating orders to Aramark staff and prisoners, and development and coaching/training of Aramark staff and Prisoners." Cooper and Damschroder argue Heyward's claims against them should be dismissed for failure to perfect service of process and for failure to state a claim. Heyward did not file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the deadline for doing so has passed. Mr. Heyward subsequently filed a motion for an order to show cause. The motion is directed at the named Defendants in the case but alleges misconduct only by ODRC employees who are not named as Defendants (Plank, Brewer, Cotton, and Dinkin). Analysis A. Service of Process Defendants Cooper and Damschroder first argue Heyward failed to effect timely service of process because "service was not made until over a year after the Complaint was filed," and not within Rule 4's 90-day window. They move to dismiss Heyward's claims against them under Rule 12(b)(5). Rule 4(m) does not set a hard and fast deadline after which a plaintiff's case must be dismissed if the plaintiff has not completed service. Instead, that deadline may be extended by the exercise of a court's discretion, through an order directing the plaintiff to effect service within a designated period of time. Judge Helmick holds that the Defendants fail to show Heyward's claims against them must be dismissed on this basis because Heyward completed service on Cooper and Damschroder within the time period he set. The Defendants also argue the "Plaintiff cannot perfect service by mailing the Complaint to the prison." They do not provide any authority in support of this assertion, which could result in the invalidation of service of process on hundreds of defendants annually in the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio alone. Moreover, this argument fails to take into account that an employee at AOCI accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf of Cooper and Damschroder, as permitted by Rule 4(e)(2)(C). Cooper and Damschroder have not shown Heyward failed to accomplish valid service under Rule 4(e)(2). Because Cooper and Damschroder have not demonstrated service of process was insufficient, Judge Helmick denies their motion to dismiss on this basis. B. Motion to Dismiss Defendants Cooper and Damschroder offer two additional veins of argument in support of their motion to dismiss. The first is that they are employees of a private company and therefore they cannot be held liable under Section 1983 because they are not state actors acting under the color of state law. Judge Helmick finds this argument unpersuasive. He says, the Eighth Amendment requires that States, including Ohio, provide "adequate food" to inmates. The facts alleged in the Complaint plainly support the conclusion that Cooper and Damschroder acted under color of state law when they provided food services within AOCI in place of the State of Ohio. The Defendants' second argumentative vein -- that Heyward has not plausibly alleged they violated his constitutional rights -- fares better. While Heyward asserts seven causes of action, only three involve allegations against Cooper and Damschroder -- violation of religious free exercise rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), denial of equal protection rights, and violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Judge Helmick holds that in none of these three claims does Heyward include allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief against either of these Defendants. As to Damschroder, Heyward fails to allege facts which support a plausible inference that Damschroder, as an administrative assistant, was "personally involved in the alleged deprivation of federal rights." Therefore, the Judge grants the motion to dismiss as to the claims asserted against Damschroder. With respect to Cooper, Judge Helmick finds that while Heyward may desire that the ODRC provide dates and arrange for Muslims to work in the cafeteria preparing meals for other Muslims, he does not allege he was forced to eat foods that he believes are impermissible or that he did not have other means of accessing the foods he desired to eat. Heyward also has not established "more than differential treatment alone," and, therefore, he fails to state an equal protection violation. Lastly, Heyward's Sherman Act and Valentine Act claims are barred by the state action exemption and his claims on that basis are dismissed. C. Motion for Order to Show Cause Finally, Heyward has filed a motion for an order to show cause. He alleges the named the Defendants "are all in one way or another chronyisticly/nepotisticly associated/friends with the now MCI Unit Manager V. Dinkins." He contends he transferred from AOCI to Marion Correctional Institution ("MCI") in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, and that individuals at MCI have been retaliating against him since he arrived at that institution. Judge Helmick concludes that Heyward has not demonstrated a show cause order is appropriate. The alleged connection between the named Defendants and the individuals at MCI is no more than insinuation and presumption. Moreover, Heyward does not allege anyone actually has interfered with his right to file grievances or his access to the courts, but only that the alleged "agents" of the named Defendants "have a clear intent to confiscate and destroy the Plaintiff's legal materials." In short, Heyward offers only speculation that his rights might be violated in the future. Such speculation is not a basis for a show-cause order. The Judge denies his motion. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Helmick grants the motion of Defendants Cooper and Damschroder to dismiss the claims asserted against them. Further, he denies Heyward's motion for a show cause order. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxzbvz9c from Leagle.com. PAYPAL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Management of Accounts --------------------------------------------------------------- pokertube.com reports that when Chris Moneymaker told PayPal customer support that he would take them to court over the funds, they quickly realised that his public profile had the potential to cause more trouble than it was worth to keep the small sum. The money was returned to Moneymaker who no doubt took great delight in informing PayPal that with already close to 50 plaintiffs signed up to a class-action lawsuit it was too late to stop the ball rolling. That was a couple of months ago. Now there are in the region of 100 disgruntled customers lining up to try and claim back any money they think has been unfairly withheld. Attorney Eric Bensomachan says that interest in the case is growing fast, no doubt helped by his standing in the poker community after successfully defeating Mike Postle in court on behalf of WSOP bracelet winner Todd Witteles. Mike Matusow hasn't released any details of how much money PayPal took from his account but he does sound excited at the possibility of recouping at least some of it in the near future. [GN] PAYROLL MADE: $220K Class Deal in Broughton Suit Has Prelim. Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TED BROUGHTON, Plaintiff v PAYROLL MADE EASY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-41-NPM (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted the parties' Second Amended Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notices to Settlement Class. Plaintiff Broughton brought the action pursuant to a disclosure and authorization provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") on behalf of himself and putative class members. Broughton claims Defendant Payroll Made Easy, Inc. d/b/a Continuum HR, unlawfully obtained and used consumer reports for employment purposes for all of its employees and job applicants. The Plaintiff contends Continuum violated the FCRA by: (1) procuring consumer reports for employment purposes without providing lawful disclosures in advance; or (2) obtaining consumer reports for employment purposes without obtaining lawful authorization. Specifically, he claims Continuum's disclosure and authorization form contained the following deficiencies: (1) it did not inform job applicants that a consumer reporting agency would be compiling their consumer report information; (2) it failed to disclose that the consumer report was being used for employment purposes; and (3) it contained an impermissible liability waiver purporting to release Continuum and its agents and any entity providing information included in the investigation into the applicant's background. Continuum denies these allegations and denies it committed any FCRA violations. On May 5, 2020, the parties attended a mediation and were able to reach a settlement in principal. They thereafter executed a Settlement Agreement and filed a Second Amended Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notices to Settlement Class, seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement so that they may send notice to the putative class members. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to a gross settlement of $220,000 to resolve the claims. The Settlement Agreement provides that $97,392 of the settlement-claim fund will be distributed to class members who applied for employment between Jan. 17, 2018, through Jan. 17, 2020 -- 602 individuals -- and who submit timely and valid claim forms. If such a class member submits a proper claim form, the class member will receive $161.78. Any unclaimed funds revert back to Continuum. The Agreement also provides that $24,348 of the settlement-claim fund will be distributed to those members of who applied for employment between Jan. 17, 2015, through Jan. 16, 2018 -- 538 individuals -- and who submit timely and valid claim forms with any unclaimed funds reverting back to Continuum. If such a class member submits a proper claim form, the class member will receive $45.25. If approved by the Court, the parties agree to disburse from the settlement-claim fund attorneys' fees not to exceed $73,260, mediation costs, and payment to the Settlement Administrator of no more than $20,000. In addition, if approved by the Court, Broughton will receive $5,000 as consideration for his agreement to execute a general release and a Supplemental Settlement Agreement. Mr. Broughton defines the class as follows: "All natural persons residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) for whom Continuum HR procured a consumer report for employment purposes using the same or substantially similar FCRA consent form as provided by Continuum HR to Plaintiff from Jan. 17, 2015, until the date of settlement approval(the Settlement Class) -- a class of approximately 1,140 people, with approximately 602 individuals in the two-year statute of limitations period preceding the date the Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Two Year Class) and approximately 538 individuals in the three to five-year statute of limitations period preceding the date the Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Three Year Class)." The parties agree to send separate notices and claim forms to each sub-class, which are divided by when the putative class member applied for employment. They propose confirmation schedule as modified and set forth below: a. Settlement Administrator mails notice (Notice Date) - Within 14 days of Preliminary Approval Order b. Deadline for Objections - 60 days after Notice is mailed by Settlement Administrator c. Deadline for Opt-Outs (Exclusion Requests) - 60 days after Notice is mailed by Settlement Administrator d. Deadline for Filing Claim - 60 days after Notice is mailed by Settlement Administrator e. Certification by Settlement Administrator - 30 days before Fairness/Final Approval Hearing Notice provisions of compliance with f. Deadline for Motion for Approval of Fees and Costs - 28 days before the Fairness Hearing/Final Approval Approval Hearing of Class Action g. Fairness/Final Approval Hearing - To be set at least 125 days after Preliminary Approval Order Lastly, in the Settlement Agreement, the parties seek entry of a final judgment: "reserving to the Court continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties with respect to the settlement and the Final Judgment." Judge Mizell finds the Settlement Agreement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of the action. Accordingly, he preliminary approves the Settlement Agreement. He also finds Broughton has satisfied all of the requirements for class certification and as a result, he finds the settlement class, as defined, is conditionally certified for settlement purposes. All notices and other information for the class members (e.g. the website) must define the class in the same manner as the Court has preliminarily approved. As so modified, the class is defined as: "All natural persons residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) for whom Continuum HR procured a consumer report for employment purposes using the same or substantially similar FCRA consent form as provided by Continuum HR to Plaintiff from Jan. 17, 2015 to Jan. 17, 2020 (the Settlement Class) -- a class of approximately 1,140 people, with approximately 602 individuals in the two-year statute of limitations period preceding the date the Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Two Year Class) and approximately 538 individuals in the three to five-year statute of limitations period preceding the date the Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Three Year Class)." Accordingly, the Second Amended Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notices to Settlement Class is granted; the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved; the class as defined is conditionally certified; attorney Marc Reed Edelman is appointed as the class counsel and Plaintiff Broughton is appointed as the class representative; the Notices and Claim Forms are approved; and the final confirmation schedule set forth in the Order is approved. The Court will set the fairness hearing by separate notice. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ypyfsd5d from Leagle.com. PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Semple Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry, are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Still Not Served ------------------------------------------------------ Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Company has yet to be served with the complaint in the class action suit entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Underway in Canada ---------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Class Suit Ongoing in Canada ------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry, are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action Underway in Canada ------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al. In a class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry, are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 21 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman disclosed purchasers of Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL) securities between March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021, inclusive ("Class Period") have until September 21, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit. The Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit charges Piedmont Lithium and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit (Skeels v. Piedmont Lithium Inc.,No. 21-cv-04161) was commenced on July 23, 2021 in the Eastern District of New York and is assigned to Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September 21, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Piedmont Lithium has not, and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits; (ii) Piedmont Lithium failed to inform relevant people and governmental authorities of its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont Lithium failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental authorities (including state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont Lithium and its lithium business does not have "strong local government support"; and (v) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On July 20, 2021, Reuters published an article entitled "In push to supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North Carolina neighbors" which reported the following, among other things, regarding Piedmont Lithium's regulatory issues in North Carolina: "The company, however, has not applied for a state mining permit or a necessary zoning variance in Gaston County, just west of Charlotte, despite telling investors since 2018 that it was on the verge of doing so. Five of the seven members of the county's board of commissioners, who control zoning changes, say they may block or delay the project . . . ." On this news, Piedmont Lithium's stock price fell nearly 20%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Piedmont Lithium securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. [GN] PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Employees File Racial Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Willie James Lafayette, Jerrell McCleve, Quincey Harris, Hasson Q. Galloway and Tyrone Santiago, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Pro Custom Solar LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-14032, (D. N.J., July 22, 2021) seeks redress for unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Pro Custom Solar operates as "Momentum Solar," a clean energy company based in New Jersey. Plaintiffs are African-American employees of Momentum Solar. They claim to be terminated on the basis of race, particularly being black. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq. Michael J. Willemin, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 Email: trahman@wigdorlaw.com mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com REGGIANO CORP: Galvez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Deductions ------------------------------------------------------------ PAULINO GALVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGGIANO CORP. (D/B/A SPIGA TO GO) and LUIGI COREA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06483 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful tip deductions. Mr. Galvez was employed as a dishwasher and a delivery worker at the Spiga To Go restaurant located at 55 W. 84th St., New York, New York from approximately January 2018 until June 30, 2021. Reggiano Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the name Spiga To Go located at 55 W. 84th St., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon Suit Remanded to Spokane Super. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued an order on pending motions in the case, ISAAC GORDON, an individual, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-0390-TOR (E.D. Wash.). Among other decisions, the Court remands the case to the Spokane County Superior Court for all further proceedings. The case concerns the "Refer a Friend" ("RAF") marketing feature from the Defendant's online investment brokerage application, which the Plaintiff alleges violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by way of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"). On Jan. 25, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. It appointed Isaac Gordon as the Class Representative; Kirk D. Miller of Kirk D. Miller, P.S. as the Class Counsel; and Brian G. Cameron and Shayne J. Sutherland of Cameron Sutherland, PLLC as the Co-Class Counsel. On Feb. 24, 2021, the Court granted the applications of E. Michelle Drake and Sophia M. Rios of Berger Montague PC to appear pro hac vice for the Plaintiff. On March 11, 2021, the Court appointed E. Michelle Drake as the co-class counsel. On April 27, 2021, the Court granted the parties' Joint Proposed Class Notice Plan and Stipulated Motion to Expedite. On May 11, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Seal, Motion to Stay, and Stipulated Motion to Expedite Motion to Stay and for a Briefing Schedule. It raised allegations that the lawsuit was orchestrated by the transmittal of a text message by class co-counsel's brother John Cameron. The Defendant also alleges that class co-counsel's son's friend (Nathan Budke) also sent a text message to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff contends his suit hinges on only one text message sent on July 24, 2019. Indeed, the First Amended Complaint contains a screenshot of the text message, but the surrounding text messaging conversation is redacted. When questioned who sent him the allegedly offending text message, the Plaintiff swore under oath that he was "uncertain", that he was "uncertain" how they met, that he was "uncertain" as to their relationship, and was he was "uncertain" if the Plaintiff provided his phone number. The Class counsel electronically signed the answers to discovery as well. Only after the Defendant investigated further and filed its motion to stay with supporting allegations. On May 26, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's Motions to Seal and Stay. In that Order, the Court stated that the proceeding, including all deadlines, class discovery, and class notice is stayed pending Defendant's discovery into these new allegations. Discussion A. Motion to Withdraw Isaac Gordon as Class Representative Plaintiff Isaac Gordon seeks to withdraw as the only class representative in the case. No one opposes his withdrawal. Additionally, serious issues have been raised as to consent and the role that theclass-counsel and his brother played in initiating the transmittal of the text message that forms the basis of the Plaintiff's suit. Further, the stripping of the surrounding text messages and deceptive answers to discovery provide additional grounds to disqualify the Plaintiff as class representative. Accordingly, Isaac Gordon is removed as the class representative. B. Motion to Decertify Class and Disqualify Class Counsel The Defendant seeks to decertify the class. The Class counsel do not oppose decertification. Additionally, serious issues have been raised that individualized inquiries will be necessary to determine the circumstances, relationship and consent (apparent or express) of each class member and the person who sent the text message. Additionally, the sender and class member may have profited from the transmittal of the text message. Accordingly, Judge Rice decertifies the class. The Defendant also seeks to disqualify the class counsel from representing the class. It contends four reasons support disqualification without specifying which counsel are directly responsible; (1) the class counsel's misrepresentations and role in manufacturing the Plaintiff's claim, (2) the class counsel's status as material fact witnesses, (3) the class counsel's conflicts with the class and each other, and (4) the class counsel's untenable working relationship. Without a full evidentiary record with which to make adequate findings, Judge Rice is hesitant to disqualify counsel at this time. Accordingly, the motion to disqualify is denied. C. Motion to Withdraw as Attorney E. Michelle Drake and Sophia M. Rios of Berger Montague PC seek to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Isaac Gordon. The Plaintiff continues to be represented by local counsel, Kirk D. Miller of Kirk D. Miller, P.S., and Brian G. Cameron and Shayne J. Sutherland, of Cameron Sutherland, PLLC. The counsel represent that Mr. Gordon approves of their withdrawal and that withdrawal will not affect Berger Montague's willing participation in discovery related to the Defendant's misconduct allegations. The Defendant opposes the motion to withdraw or in the alternative ask the Court to defer ruling until the motion to decertify and disqualify are filed. The class has now been decertified. For good cause shown, E. Michelle Drake and Sophia M. Rios of Berger Montague PC's motion to withdraw as counsel and class counsel is granted. The motion to expedite the same is denied as moot. D. Sua Sponte Consideration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction The Court notes that it is well established that "a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal." "Courts must consider" challenges to subject matter jurisdiction "sua sponte." "Tardy jurisdictional objections" occasion wasted court resources and "disturbingly disarm litigants." The basis for the Court's jurisdiction was that the class action concerned an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million thereby invoking 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The matter is no longer a class action and the amount at issue does not exceed $5 million. Even if the Court were to invoke the basic diversity of citizenship statute as to the Plaintiff's single allegation of a violation of CEMA, subject matter jurisdiction fails because Plaintiff Isaac Gordon's damages do not exceed $75,000. Accordingly, the matter must be remanded back to the State Court. E. Remaining Motions All remaining motions concern discovery in the matter. Because the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction, all remaining motions are denied as moot. The State Court is now the forum to decide those issues. Order In light of the foregoing, Judge Rice ordered the following: 1. The telephonic hearing scheduled Sept. 2, 2021 is stricken; 2. Brian Cameron's Motion to Intervene to File Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena or, Alternatively, Motion for Protective Order Regarding Subpoena is denied as moot; 3. Brian Cameron's Motion to Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum and for FRE 502(d) Non-Waiver or Alternatively, Grant Protective Order is denied as moot; 4. Ewan Cameron's Motion to Quash/Modify is denied as moot; 5. John Cameron's Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena is denied as moot; 6. Non-Party Nathan Budke's Motion to Quash or Modify Defendant's Subpoenas to Nathan Budke is denied as moot; 7. Non-Party Nathan Budke's Motion to Intervene and Quash or Modify Defendant's Subpoena to AT&T is denied as moot; 8. Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum and for FRE 502(d) Non-Waiver or Alternatively, Grant Protective Order is denied as moot; 9. Berger Montague's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is granted; 10. Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Isaac Gordon as Class Representative is granted; 11. Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite BMPC's Motion to Withdraw is denied as moot; 12. Defendant's Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance of Ewan Cameron is denied as moot; 13. Defendant's Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance of Nathan Budke is denied as moot; 14. Defendant's Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance of John Cameron is denied as moot; 15. Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and Disqualify Class Counsel is granted in part; 16. The Combined Motion for Protective Order is denied as moot; and 17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), this matter is remanded to the Spokane County Superior Court for all further proceedings (former Spokane County Superior Court Cause No. 19-2-04574-32). The District Court Executive is directed to enter the Order, furnish copies to the counsel, mail a certified copy of the Order to the Clerk of the Spokane County Superior Court, and close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/af25c3bc from Leagle.com. ROBINHOOD SECURITIES: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE TRADING LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-md-02989-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Movant Blue Laine-Beveridge, pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asks the Order to enter an order: 1. appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of persons or entities who sold any of the Affected Securities via the Robinhood trading platform on or after January 28, 2021 as a result of Robinhood's restrictions for violations under the federal securities laws; 2. approving Movant's selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (Rosen Law) as Lead Counsel; and 3. granting such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper. On April 1, 2021, pursuant to the Transfer Order, many actions asserting claims under the federal securities laws were centralized, including Muncy v. Robinhood Securities, LLC, et al., Daniels v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al., Cobos v. Robinhood Financial LLC, et al., Diamond v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al., Lagmanson v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., and Krumenacker v. Robinhood Financial LLC, et al., (collectively with the Muncy Action, the "Securities Allegations Actions"). Following the Transfer Order, additional cases asserting claims under the federal securities laws can be and were filed and centralized including Best et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al. Defendant Robinhood Financial, LLC purports to operate as an institutional brokerage company. The Company purports to provide online and mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that allows users to invest in publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds. Defendant Robinhood Securities, LLC is registered as a broker-dealer with the SEC. Robinhood Securities, LLC acts as a clearing broker and clears trades introduced by its affiliate Defendant Robinhood Financial. Defendant Robinhood Markets, Inc. is the corporate parent of Defendants Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC. The Doe Defendants are individuals and entities, including hedge funds, that took short positions in the Affected Securities (defined below), conspired to negatively affect the market price of the Affected Securities, and disarm and silence individual investors. After Robinhood restricted trading of the Affected Securities on its trading platform, the price of the Affected Securities fell dramatically. For example, that same day, AMC shares fell $11.27 per share, or 56%, to close at $8.63 per share, BB shares fell $10.45 per share, or 41%, to close at $14.65 per share, BBBY shares fell $19.25 per share, or 46%, to close at $33.64 per share, GME shares fell $153.91 per share, or 44%, to close at $193.60 per share, and NOK ADSs fell $1.86 per ADS, or 28%, to close at $4.69 per ADS. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Affected Security’s shares, movant and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. A copy of the Movant's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ysCS2j at no extra charge.[CC] [Proposed] Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff, are: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Michael Cohen, Esq. Erica Stone, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: 11th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of McIntosh Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NIKKI McINTOSH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-10562 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reverses the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and remands for further proceedings. A "cruise to nowhere" usually involves a ship sailing into international waters for several days without any intermediate port calls. On such a cruise, it's supposedly the journey, and not the destination, that matters. This maritime negligence case involves a different type of "cruise to nowhere" -- one that never departed. The Liberty of the Seas, owned by Royal Caribbean Cruises, was scheduled to sail from Galveston, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2017. But Hurricane Harvey -- a Category 4 storm that eventually made landfall in Texas and Louisiana -- had other ideas, and Royal Caribbean cancelled the cruise on the date of its scheduled departure and offered refunds to the would-be passengers. One of those passengers, McIntosh filed, on behalf of other similarly situated passengers, a class-action complaint against Royal Caribbean on several tort theories, including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that Royal Caribbean canceled the cruise and offered refunds only on the day the Liberty of the Seas was set to sail. Because the ticket contracts provided that no refunds would be given for passenger cancelations within 14 days of the voyage, and because Royal Caribbean repeatedly told passengers that they would lose their entire payments for the cruise if they canceled, the Plaintiffs claimed that they were forced to travel to Galveston and nearby areas (like Houston) as Hurricane Harvey approached. She alleged that, while in Texas, they were forced to endure hurricane-force conditions, and suffered physical and emotional injuries. In a series of orders, the district court ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action due to a class-action waiver in the passengers' ticket contracts; that the complaint failed to plead damages sufficient to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; that the Plaintiffs had not established maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1333(1); and that the claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress failed as a matter of law. After the district court ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action, over 100 Plaintiffs filed a joint amended complaint asserting individual claims. Based upon these rulings, the court dismissed the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice. The Plaintiffs now appeal, challenging the district court's jurisdictional and merits rulings. Discussion A. The district court, acting sua sponte, ruled that the Plaintiffs could not aggregate their emotional distress claims to satisfy the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. It reasoned that the Plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce rights in which they had a common and undivided interest. It also summarily stated that the Plaintiffs' claims did not arise under federal maritime law so as to provide for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1333(1). The Eleventh Circuit holds that in ruling that diversity jurisdiction was lacking, the district court committed two errors, one procedural and one substantive. Each one provides an independent basis for reversal. First, the district court failed to give the Plaintiffs notice of its intent to sua sponte address the matter of diversity jurisdiction. A federal court has an independent duty to ensure that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. And that means that it can take up the issue of such jurisdiction on its own. Second, putting aside the aggregation of damages issue, the district court failed to consider whether any individual Plaintiff had satisfied the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. The alleged injuries and expenses -- accepted as true -- are sufficient to plead damages that exceed the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. The Eleventh Circuit adds one more observation. It notes that the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. That was incorrect. It holds that if subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist, dismissal must be without prejudice. B. On remand, the district court should also consider whether there is maritime jurisdiction. In one of its orders, the district court said that maritime law applied to the Plaintiffs' claims. But in a later order, the district court summarily stated that the Plaintiffs had not alleged any facts demonstrating federal-question (i.e., maritime) jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit expresses no view on whether the torts alleged by the Plaintiffs arise under or are governed by federal maritime law. On remand, even though diversity jurisdiction may exist as to some or all of the Plaintiffs, the district court will need to address whether any of their claims arise under federal maritime law because the elements of a tort can differ under maritime law and state law. Should the district court conclude that there is maritime jurisdiction, it will need to apply the "zone of interest" test the Eleventh Circuit adopted in Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2012) to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. That test -- which includes an "impact rule" -- also "allows recovery if a plaintiff is 'placed in immediate risk of physical harm by the defendant's negligent conduct.'" Conclusion The Eleventh Circuit reverses the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and remands for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. Because of the uncertainty over jurisdiction, the Court does not address the class action waiver or the Plaintiffs' claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2uut6m2x from Leagle.com. SD AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Pelico Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDGAR PELICO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SD AUTOMOTIVE INC. (D/B/A SD AUTOMOTIVE) and DAVID KLEIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-04215 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) is brought against Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff seeks applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Pelico, who was employed as a mechanic at the Defendants' automotive repair shop, worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Pelico appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants also maintained a policy and practice of requiring Pelico and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, adds the complaint. Defendants owned, operated, or controlled an automotive repair shop, located at 42 W Merrick Rd, Valley Stream, NY 11580 under the name "SD Automotive." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 SKYLIMIT CONTRACTING: Underpays Scaffolders, Fajardo Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL FAJARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKYLIMIT CONTRACTING LLC, and VEMA CONTRACTING CORP. and JANETH QUIZHPI and JAIME LOPEZ, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04207 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants to recover damages for their alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around August 2008 until in or around November 2020 to perform its primary duties as a scaffolder, and other miscellaneous duties. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours worked from in or around July 2015 until in or around October 2020. Despite working approximately 54 hours or more hours per week for the Defendants from in or around July 2015 until in or around November 2020, the Defendants allegedly denied the Plaintiff his lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Also, the Defendants did pay the Plaintiff an extra hour or "spread of hours" pay at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours from in or around August 2008 until in or around November 2020. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records, and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wag requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL, the suit asserts. Skylimit Contracting LLC and Vema Contracting Corp. operate as construction companies. Janeth Quizhpi and Jaime Lopez own and operates both Corporate Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 STABLE ROAD: Hall Files Suit Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------- Martin Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., Momentus Inc., SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot, James Norris and Mikhail Kokorich, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05943 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2021), seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Stable Road is a special purpose acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more businesses. Momentus Inc. is currently a private company that offers in-space infrastructure services by building transfer and service vehicles that will carry satellites and hosted payloads between orbits in space using an innovative water-based propulsion system, a microwave electro-thermal water plasma thruster. On October 7, 2020, Momentus announced that it had signed a definitive merger agreement with Stable Road, resulting in Momentus becoming a publicly traded entity. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Momentus had only conducted a single in-space test which did not meet any of Momentus's pre-launch evaluation criteria, that the sole in-space test conducted by Momentus was never designed to test the commercial viability of the company's thrusters, that Kokorich had been informed that the U.S. Government considered him to be a "threat" that caused his affiliation with another space technology company to be a risk to national security, that, because Kokorich was considered a national security risk, Momentus would face challenges obtaining the necessary licenses and approvals for its commercial launches and that, as a result, Kokorich's affiliation with Momentus jeopardized, among other things, the company's launch schedule and revenue projections which were based on assumptions about the timing of the company's first commercial launch, that Stable Road had not conducted adequate due diligence, including as it relates to Momentus's testing progress and national security concerns with Momentus's CEO, that, as a result of the failure to disclose the foregoing, Stable Road was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny. On this news, the company's share price fell $1.20, or over 10%, to close at $10.68 per share on July 14, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Hall purchased Stable Road securities and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com STABLE ROAD: Klein Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:SRAC) Class Period: October 7, 2020 - July 13, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021 According to the complaint, Stable Road Acquisition Corp. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Stable Road's acquistion target, Momentus's 2019 test of its key technology, a water plasma thruster, had failed to meet Momentus's own public and internal pre-launch criteria for success, and was conducted on a prototype that was not designed to generate commercially significant amounts of thrust; (b) the U.S. government had conveyed that it considered Momentus's Chief Executive Officer a national security threat, jeopardizing his continued leadership of Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and business prospects; (c) consequently, the revenue projections and business and operational plans provided to investors regarding Momentus and the commercial viability and timeline of its products were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and (d) Stable Road had failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of Momentus and its business operations and defendants had materially misrepresented the due diligence activities being conducted by Stable Road executives and its sponsor in connection with the merger. Learn about your recoverable losses in SRAC: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/stable-road-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=18123&from=1 Learn about your recoverable losses in ATHA: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/athira-pharma-inc-loss-submission-form?id=18123&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] TARTE COSMETICS: Ferguson BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled BRITTANY FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARTE COSMETICS, INC., Case No. 2021L000101, was removed from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on July 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-03180-SEM-TSH to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting the Plaintiff's and Class members' facial geometry scans without first: (a) obtaining consent to use their biometrics; (b) providing written notice of the Defendant's use of biometrics; and (c) making a written biometrics policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanent deletion of biometric data available, and actually adhering to that retention schedule with respect to the deletion of the Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric data. Tarte Cosmetics, Inc. is an American cosmetics company headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-5553 Facsimile: (215) 832-5533 E-mail: Rosenthal-J@BlankRome.com - and – Andrew Schrag, Esq., Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 776-2521 Facsimile: (312) 264-2461 E-mail: ASchrag@BlankRome.com - and – David J. Oberly, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 1700 PNC Center 201 E. Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 362-8711 Facsimile: (513) 362-8798 E-mail: DOberly@BlankRome.com TESLA INC: Reportedly Agrees to $1.5M Settlement for Battery Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- pcmag.com reports that Tesla reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit related to allegations of battery throttling with a $1.5 million fund that could pay up to $625 to each of the affected vehicle owners. The lawsuit claimed an over-the-air update to the Tesla Model S caused "significant harm" to Tesla's customers "in terms of reduced range capabilities, longer battery charging times, and overall decrease in the value" of their vehicles under the guise of improving their safety. There were legitimate safety concerns. Tesla released the firmware update after a parked Model S caught fire in Hong Kong in May 2019. The company said it was "revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles" via the update to protect its customers. But this suit claimed Tesla "fraudulently manipulated its software with the intent to avoid its duties and legal obligations to customers to fix, repair, or replace the batteries of the Class Vehicles, all of which Tesla knew were defective, yet failed to inform its customers of the defects." This particular suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but similar lawsuits were filed around the world. Earlier this year Tesla was ordered to pay affected Model S and Model X customers $16,000 each because of the same firmware updates. CNBC said the settlement requires Tesla to "maintain diagnostic software for in-warranty vehicles to notify owners and lessees of vehicles that Tesla determines may need battery service or repair for certain battery issues" in addition to establishing the $1.5 million fund. [GN] TIREHUB LLC: Bid to Dismiss Jones' 1st Amended Complaint Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONSHEA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIREHUB, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00564-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. A. Background Plaintiff Jones brings the putative wage and hour class action against Tirehub. The Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim and for failure to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code Section 2699, et seq. In the alternative, it moves for a more definitive statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). The Plaintiff filed an opposition, to which the Defendant replied. The Defendant operates a national chain of tire distribution centers which provide Bridgestone and Goodyear tires to tire and automotive retailers. The Plaintiff worked at one of the Defendant's California centers as a driver and material handler between Nov. 1, 2020 and March 30, 2021. On Feb. 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the action in Solano County Superior Court alleging violations of the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code. On March 26, 2021, the Defendant removed the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Pursuant to a stipulation, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 4, 2021. The Plaintiff asserts the following state law claims against the Defendant: (1) unlawful failure to pay wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 200-204, 510, 558, 1194, 1198; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226, 1174; (4) failure to pay wages on termination in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 203; (5) unlawful business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-17208; and (6) a PAGA claim. The Plaintiff seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief. B. Analysis 1. PAGA Claim The Defendant first moves to dismiss the PAGA claim, arguing the Plaintiff failed to plead compliance with PAGA's administrative notice requirements. The Plaintiff did not attach a copy of his PAGA notice letter to the complaint. Instead, he contends he substantively pled compliance. The Defendant argues his allegations are insufficient to show compliance with the PAGA notice requirements under the Court's decision in Krauss v. Wal-Mart Inc, No. 2:19-cv-00838-JAM-DB, 2020 WL 1874072, at *8-9 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2020). In Kraus, the plaintiff similarly did not attach a copy of the PAGA notice letter and provided bare-bones allegations in her complaint. The Court dismissed plaintiff's PAGA claim, explaining that "without including the facts and theories Plaintiff provided to LWDA in her complaint, the Court cannot independently conclude that she has satisfied the requirements of the statute as a matter of law." The Plaintiff counters that Krauss is distinguishable "because he has provided the Court with a copy of his LWDA letter" as an exhibit to the opposition brief and because "the facts and theories provided to the LWDA were integrated into the FAC." Judge Mendez opines that both of these arguments fail. First, the facts and theories provided to the LWDA were not integrated into the FAC: The Plaintiff did not allege what the contents of his PAGA notice letter were including what facts and theories supported his claim; instead, the Plaintiff merely pleads in conclusory terms that he "complied." Thus, as in Krauss, the Court "cannot independently conclude that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of the statute as a matter of law." Second, he says, the Plaintiff attempts to demonstrate compliance through an unauthorized introduction of extrinsic evidence beyond the allegations in the FAC. Accordingly, the Judge finds the Plaintiff has not pled compliance with PAGA's notice requirements and dismisses his PAGA claim. 2. Remaining Claims The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unlawful failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages on termination, and unlawful business practices under the UCL. The Defendant contends all of these claims should be dismissed because the FAC is devoid of factual allegations and simply recites the elements of each claim. Judge Mendez agrees and finds the FAC falls well short of what is required under Iqbal, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2014). He finds that the Plaintiff's allegations lack factual specificity. The lack of specificity precludes the Court from making any plausible inferences about the Defendant's conduct and fails to give the Defendant the fair notice necessary to defend itself effectively. Additionally, the Judge says, these allegations fall short of what is required under Landers. In Landers, the Ninth Circuit addressed the specificity required for pleading wage and hour claims following Twombly and Iqbal and held that "conclusory allegations that merely recite the statutory language" are inadequate. The Ninth Circuit instructed that "at a minimum the plaintiff must allege at least one workweek when he worked in excess of forty hours and was not paid for the excess hours in that workweek, or was not paid minimum wages." The Court has twice applied Landers to find that the "failure to plead at least one occasion on which plaintiffs were impeded from taking a meal or rest break" warrants dismissal. In the case, the Plaintiff has not specifically pled or identified any such occasions. Lastly, the Plaintiff's UCL claim is predicated on his preceding claims for violations of the California Labor Code. Because he has failed to sufficiently plead these underlying claims, the Plaintiff's derivative UCL claim necessarily fails and is dismissed. 3. Class Allegations The Defendant's final argument is that the complaint fails to establish entitlement to class relief. First, it points out that the Plaintiff alleges two inconsistent class definitions. Further, the Plaintiff identifies no commonality between her and the putative class. He did not respond to these arguments. Therefore, the Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed. C. Leave to Amend Courts dismissing claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) have discretion to permit amendment, and there is a strong presumption in favor of leave to amend. The Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is granted. Any amended complaint, however, must contain facts that sufficiently support plausible causes of action. D. Sanctions A violation of the Court's standing order requires the offending counsel (not the client) to pay $50 per page over the page limit to the Clerk of Court. Moreover, the Court does not consider arguments made past the page limit. The Defendant's reply brief exceeds the Court's page limit by 2 pages. Its counsel must therefore send a check payable to the Clerk for the Eastern District of California for $100 no later than seven days from the date of the Order. E. Order For the reasons he set forth, Judge Mendez grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. If the Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he will file a Second Amended Complaint within 20 of the Order. The Defendant's responsive pleading is due 20 days thereafter. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrjus3ap from Leagle.com. TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Supra Repairs ----------------------------------------------------------- carcomplaints.com reports that a Toyota class action lawsuit alleges trying to get a Supra repaired in Maryland is miserable because of the time waiting for repairs. That's allegedly because when Toyota brought back the Supra in 2019, the chassis, transmissions and engines have been made by BMW. Toyota manufactured the Supra from 1978 to when manufacturing of the car ceased in 2002, then Toyota reintroduced the Supra in 2019 and several recalls have been issued since then. However, typically those recalls are announced by BMW due to the components used in the Toyota Supra. The Toyota class action lawsuit includes Maryland Supra customers and was filed by Maryland plaintiff Mitchell Bazzano who alleges he lost the use of his Supra for more than six months. "Plaintiff brought, or inquired about bringing, his Supra to the dealership for servicing and/or repairs, he was told of and/or experienced delays of over six months to return it to him. Plaintiff had to refrain from the full usage of his vehicle during the time in which the Supra was not serviced or repaired." — Toyota Supra class action The plaintiff says Supra customers cannot depend on reasonable wait times because the Toyota dealerships that sold or leased the cars lack the equipment and parts to repair the cars. The class action also alleges Toyota technicians may not even be generally familiar with the BMW engines and transmissions. According to the plaintiff, he knows all cars may have issues due to the thousands of unique parts which must work together, but he expects a company which sells cars to repair and service those vehicles within reasonable time periods. The Toyota class action lawsuit alleges the excessive delays in repairs existed before the Coronavirus struck, leaving Supra customers without their cars for extended amounts of time. Toyota is allegedly guilty of false and misleading advertising when the automaker assures lessees and buyers that it will repair problems within a reasonable amount of time. The Toyota class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland: Mitchell Bazzano, v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. The plaintiff is represented by Sheehan & Associates, P.C. [GN] TRUGREEN INC: Faces Lorea Employment Suit in Calif. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trugreen Inc. The case is captioned as Adam Lorea vs. Trugreen Inc a Delaware corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00304557-CU-OE-GDS (Cal., Super., Sacramento Cty., July 19, 2021). The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues. The Defendants include Does 1 through 100; Trugreen, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Trugreen Limited Partnership a Delaware limited partnership. TruGreen provides building maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Kudatsky Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KUDATSKY, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of those similarly-situated, v. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, Case No. 3:19-cv-07647-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order granting proposed settlement adequate at this stage: 1. Class counsel will send the approved class notice via email (for class members whose email address are known) and via first-class mail (for all) to the class by August 10, 2021. Both Tyler and Class Counsel shall also post such notice to their websites by this date. 2. Class members' objections to the proposed settlement shall be due September 23, 2021. 3. The parties' replies to the objections shall be due October 7, 2021. 4. The parties shall move for final approval by October 19, 2021. 5. The parties' declarations attesting to the provision of class service is due Class counsel will send the approved class notice via email for class members November 1, 2021. 6. The final approval fairness hearing shall take place at 8:00 A.M. on November 4, 2021. In this class action under the Federal Labor Standards Act and California wage and hour law, parties seek preliminary approval of a class and collective action settlement worth $3.15 million, to benefit a total of 295 individual employees. The suit concerns overtime and other compensation related to employees' purported misclassification as exempt from overtime and itemized wage statement requirements. Because the proposal would award adequate relief, preliminary approval is granted. A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TY0flm at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOES 1-6, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and MERRICK GARLAND, in his official capacity as United States Attorney General, Case No. 2:21-cv-03254-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certfying three classes: -- Class 1 "All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, who received the government's constitutionally-inadequate notice of seizure of their property but filed an administrative forfeiture claim, and seek return of their property in judicial forfeiture proceedings using a pseudonym and/or through sealed filings or the appointment of a special master to administer their claims. -- Class 2 "All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, and who have received no written or published notice of seizure, and seek return of their property using a pseudonym, and/or through under sealed filings or the appointment of a special master to administer their claims" -- Class 3 "All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, but received a constitutionally-inadequate notice, and seek return of their property using a pseudonym, and/or through sealed filings or the appointment of a special master to administer the relief they seek." The Plaintiffs DOES 1-6, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, request the Court to allow them and the putative class members to use a pseudonym to file and litigate their claims in any judicial civil forfeiture action filed by the government relating to the seized USPV safe deposit boxes. They move the Court to certify three classes of putative class members seeking such relief. Since 2011, US Private Vaults ("USPV") operated a private safe deposit box facility, and rented between 600 and 1000 boxes to hundreds of customers who kept non-contraband property, including U.S. currency, gold and jewelry. The Plaintiffs Does 1-6 maintained the following boxes, respectively: 1) box numbers 5006 and 4105; 2) #5006 and #4105, 3) #6710, 4) #4300, 5) #400, and 6) #40. Only the box holder or their designee can open their box, through encrypted biometric information and their own key. In their Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and/or declaratory relief to allow them to contest U.S. government forfeiture of their property using a pseudonym to identify themselves, or, in the alternative, an order allowing them to file claims and litigate their case under seal, or an order appointing a special master to administer claims filed in their own names (out of the purview of the defendant government). The Plaintiffs also seek return of their property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The Class Action Complaint initially proposed a broad class defined as follows: "All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit box at US Private Vaults, located at 9182 West Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 during the month of March 2021." After discovering additional facts, Plaintiffs now request 13 of three more narrowly-defined classes: A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WOlHKq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Honig, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG A Professional Law Corporation P.O. Box 10327 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 Telephone: (310) 699-8051 Facsimile: (310) 943-2220 E-mail: erichonig@aol.com - and - Richard M. Barnett, Esq. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 105 West F Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (6l9) 231-1182 Facsimile: (619) 233-3221 E-mail: richardmbarnett@gmail.com - and - Michael S. Chernis, Esq. CHERNIS LAW GROUP P.C. Santa Monica Water Garden 2425 Olympic Blvd. Suite 4000-W Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: (310) 566-4388 Facsimile: (310) 382-2541 E-mail: Michael@chernislaw.com - and - Eric D. Shevin, Esq. SHEVIN LAW GROUP 15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 784-2700 Facsimile: (818) 784-2411 E-mail: eric@shevinlaw.com - and - Paul L. Gabbert, Esq. 2530 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: 424 272-9575 Facsimile: 310 829-2148 E-mail: plgabbert@aol.com - and - Devin J. Burstein, Esq. WARREN & BURSTEIN 501 West Broadway, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 234-4433 E-mail: db@wabulaw.com UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Haberlein Suit Over FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- ANNIE HABERLEIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, Case 2:21-cv-11741-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 27, 2021) is an action for money damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief as a result of a requirement by Defendant United Wholesale that employees who are not eligible for overtime pay work over 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay compensation, which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that Defendant told Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees that they would only work a "Firm 40." Defendant told Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees that they should be able to perform their jobs effectively without working outside of normal business hours. In fact, however, Defendant instituted policies and practices to prevent Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees from being compensated for working over 40 hours per week. Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were employed as non-exempt Account Executives for Defendant, a publicly held for-profit company in Michigan operating as a wholesale lender that works exclusively with independent mortgage brokers across the country to provide home mortgages to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063) NACHTLAW, P.C. 101 N. Main Street, Suite 555 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Tel: (734) 663-7550 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Retirement Plan Members File ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Martin P. Moler, John T. Czahor, and Kathleen D'Ascenzo, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the University of Maryland Medical System 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan and UMMS Voluntary 403(b) Plan, Plaintiffs, v. University of Maryland Medical System and Employee Benefits Committee, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01824 (D. Md., July 22, 2021), seeks appropriate monetary, equitable and other relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (UMMS) is a university-based regional health care system focused on serving the health care needs of Maryland. It includes 14 hospitals, two freestanding emergency centers and nearly 140 outpatient and urgent care centers. UMMS has been the sponsor, administrator and a fiduciary for several investment options offered to its employees. Plaintiffs are former employees of UMMS. Participants of the plan allege that Defendants failed to prudently review the plans' investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent in terms of performance and cost, failed to prudently select investment share classes for many of its funds, imprudently selected and retained funds in the plan despite the availability of similar investment options with lower fees and/or better performance histories, imprudently included and recommended the abusive asset allocation service furnished by Prudential Insurance Company, and imprudently failed to ensure that the plan's recordkeeping and total expenses were reasonable and not excessive. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: agold@tzlegal.com - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Michael C. McKay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 117 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 Facsimile: (480) 348-3999 Email: mmckay@mckaylaw.us UPS STORE: McLaren Consumer Fraud Suit Goes to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled BARABARA McLAREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE UPS STORE, INC., TURQUOISE TERRAPIN LLC formerly d/b/a UPS Store #4122, RK & SP SERVICES, INC., formerly d/b/a UPS Store #4122, and HAMILTON PACK N SHIP LLC, d/b/a UPS Store #4122, Case No. MER-L-000919-20, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-14424 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and equitable and injunctive relief by charging excessive notarization fees. The UPS Store, Inc. is a subsidiary of United Parcel Service which provides shipping, shredding, printing, fax, passport photos, personal and business mailboxes, and notary services, headquartered in San Diego, California. Turquoise Terrapin LLC, formerly doing business as UPS Store #4122, is a mailbox rental services provider, headquartered in New Jersey. RK & SP Services, Inc., formerly doing business as UPS Store #4122, is a mailbox rental services provider, headquartered in New Jersey. Hamilton Pack N Ship LLC, doing business as UPS Store #4122, is a provider of shipping and mailbox services based in New Jersey. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: David J. Fioccola, Esq. Adam J. Hunt, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 468-8000 Facsimile: (212) 468-7900 E-mail: dfioccola@mofo.com adamhunt@mofo.com - and – Mark R. McDonald, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 E-mail: mmcdonald@mofo.com US FERTILITY: Leonard Suit Transferred from E.D.N.Y. to Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Leonard v. US Fertility, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00835, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on July 19, 2021. The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01783-PJM to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from personal property-related violation and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte. USF provides IT platforms and services to several infertility clinics.[BN] VERTAFORE INC: Demetros Sues Over Use of Motor Vehicle Records -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIA DEMETROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERTAFORE INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:21-cv-81323 (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's collection, usage, and re-disclosure of motor vehicle records obtained from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles without obtaining prior consent of the drivers, including the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest. Vertafore Inc. is a software development company, headquartered in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. James Ulwick, Esq. Eli J. Hare, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com julwick@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com - and – Joseph Malley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C. 1045 North Zang Boulevard Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (214) 943-6100 E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com VILLAGE OF ALSIP, IL: Court Dismisses Lewis Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SHELLIE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VILLAGE OF ALSIP, Defendant, Case No. 21 C 2124 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The case is a putative class action in which Plaintiff Lewis, a resident of the Village of Alsip, Illinois, alleges that Alsip violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. On Jan. 31, 2021, Lewis found on her car's windshield a ticket Alsip issued for violating Section 19-91 of its Code of Ordinances. Under Section 19-91.1 of the Code, any person convicted of a violation of Section 19-91 "shall be fined not less than $25 and not more than $250 for each offense." Lewis owns a car that she regularly parks on Alsip's public streets. Some time prior to Jan. 30, 2021, Lewis had parked her car near 12536 South Central Park Avenue. There were no signs posted restricting her ability to park there. She found her ticket in the snow on her windshield. On Feb. 17, 2021, an Alsip administrative hearing officer found Lewis liable for violating Section 19-91 and imposed a $50 fine, which Lewis paid that day. At the time of her hearing, there were dozens of others present who had hearings at the same time for tickets that were issued to them for violating the same ordinance. Before the hearings began, the hearing officer spoke to everyone in attendance and told them that the lack of street signage regarding secondary-snow-route parking restrictions was not a valid basis to contest the ticket, and that because the snow-route laws were posted on Alsip's website, "the burden was on them to know" that no parking was permitted on the street at the time they received the tickets. Because of these remarks, Lewis did not argue when she appeared before the hearing officer that there had been no signage and thus a lack of fair notice; instead, she merely protested that the only place she could park was on the street and that it was unfair to have been ticketed. Ms. Lewis alleges that Alsip does not post signs to inform people about the secondary-snow-route parking restrictions and that the issuance of tickets for violating Section 19-91 violates the due process rights of plaintiff and all others who are similarly situated, because such tickets are issued without "fair and proper notice" of the parking restrictions. Ms. Lewis seeks to represent a class of "all persons who, during the Class Period, have been ticketed and/or fined pursuant to Section 19-91 and 19-91.1 of the Village's Code of Ordinances." Lewis seeks (1) a declaration that Alsip's policy of issuing tickets for violation of Section 19-91 without fair notice violates the Due Process Clause; (2) preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Alsip from enforcing the ordinance against the Plaintiff and others without providing fair notice in accord with the requirements of due process; (3) nominal and compensatory damages; and (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Alsip moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Discussion To state a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violation, a plaintiff must allege (1) deprivation of a protected property interest and (2) insufficient procedural protections surrounding that deprivation, citing Tucker v. City of Chi., 907 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 2018). Alsip does not dispute that the assessment of a fine is a deprivation of a protected property interest, but it contends that the Plaintiff has pleaded facts indicating that she was afforded sufficient procedural protections surrounding the deprivation, namely, that she received a ticket on her windshield and a hearing at which she had the opportunity to present a defense to a hearing officer. In response, the Plaintiff asserts that she is not challenging the notice or adequacy of the hearing she was provided and that Alsip fails to "address her actual claim," which is that she "was wrongly issued the parking ticket in the first place due to the Village's systemic failure to provide fair notice to individuals that certain streets in the Village are 'no parking' zones." Alsip's motion, however, does address the Plaintiff's actual claim, which, in her words, is that Alsip fails to "give reasonable advance notice in the form of signage to its citizens." Indeed, Alsip expressly states in its motion that the Plaintiff's "only contention is that the lack of street signage" violated her due process rights. The problem, says Alsip, is that the alleged lack of signage is not connected to a deprivation of property. Judge Guzman agrees. He opines that the Plaintiff's claim is premised on her allegedly wrongful receipt of a parking ticket, but the receipt of a ticket did not constitute a deprivation of property. While Alsip cites and discusses Tucker in its motion, the Plaintiff fails to address that decision, and she sidesteps the issue of identifying the alleged deprivation of property. The Plaintiff contends that her claim "arises under what has been called 'the doctrine of fair notice,'" under which government entities must "take measures that are reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action to be taken against them." The Judge finds that the Plaintiff does not challenge the adequacy of the notice of the hearing on her ticket; rather, she claims that she was entitled to signs setting out the laws themselves. The instant case also does not involve passive conduct, nor can it be said that the populace is unaware of the existence of parking laws or snow-route parking restrictions (particularly in the Chicago area). Because the Plaintiff fails to state a procedural due process claim, the Judge will dismiss the amended complaint. In light of the Court's conclusion with respect to Alsip's first argument, the Judge need not reach Alsip's arguments regarding the doctrines of abstention and res judicata. Conclusion For these reasons, Judge Guzman granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and dismissed without prejudice the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff is given until Aug. 13, 2021 to file a second amended complaint to the extent she is able to do so in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/p9ekyz93 from Leagle.com. WARDROBE LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Tatum-Rios Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LYNNETTE TATUM-RIOS, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. WARDROBE LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06474-JMF (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, www.wardrobe.nyc, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a retailer of clothing for men and women. Without any brick-and-mortar stores, the Website is Defendant’s exclusive point of sale. Through the Website, customers can purchase items including dresses, tops, skirts, jackets, pants, swimsuits, and similar items. These items can be delivered anywhere in the United States. The Defendant's website is heavily integrated with its retail operations, serving as a gateway to them. Through the Website, Defendant’s customers are able to learn about Defendant's products; including size and color options, fit, materials used and care instructions, learn about the shipping and return policies, and get contact information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com WESTERN EXPRESS: Class of Truck Drivers Certified in Elmy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN ELMY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as Rule 23(b)(3) Class Actions. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify. The Defendants filed a response in opposition, the Plaintiffs filed a reply, and the Defendants filed a Sur-Reply. The Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Expert Report in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants filed a response in opposition, and the Plaintiffs filed a reply. I. Motion to Strike The Plaintiffs move to strike the expert report of Robert Crandall in support of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the grounds that the Defendants failed to disclose Mr. Crandall as a witness or his report in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and that Mr. Crandall's report does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Judge Campbell notes that neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit have decided whether a district court must undertake a Daubert analysis at the class-certification stage when an expert's report is critical to the class certification analysis -- Hicks v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 965 F.3d 452, 465-66 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Comcast v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 39-40 (2013) and In re Carpenter Co., No. 14-0302, 2014 WL 12809636, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 29, 2014)). In the case, Judge Campbell does not find Mr. Crandall's report critical to its class certification analysis. As such, Judge Campbell declines to consider the Plaintiffs' motion to strike before ruling on the pending motion for class certification. II. Motion to Certify To certify a class, the Court must be satisfied that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and at least one of Rule 23(b)'s provisions are met. The party seeking class certification bears the burden of showing that the requirements for class certification are met. In the present case, the Plaintiffs rely on Rule 23(b)(3), which allows for certification of a Rule 23(a)-compliant class. A. Rule 23(a) To be certified, a class must satisfy the prerequisites set forth in Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: that "(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." 1. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Generally, the number of members of the proposed class, if more than several hundred, easily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1)." The Defendants do not appear to contest the Plaintiffs' position on numerosity. Given that the class is estimated to exceed 4,000 members, Judge Campbell holds that joinder is impracticable and the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) are met. 2. Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be "questions of law or fact common to the class." The Plaintiffs must show that the class members' claims depend upon a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of class-wide resolution. Judge Campbell concludes the Plaintiffs have met the commonality prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(2). 3. Typicality Typicality is met if the class members' claims are fairly encompassed by the named plaintiffs' claims." The Plaintiffs assert that the claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the proposed class because they arise from the same factual circumstances. The Defendants argue that the Named Plaintiffs' claims are not typical of the purported class members because of factual differences; namely that some drivers were paid on a percentage of gross revenue basis whereas the Named Plaintiffs were paid on a per-mile basis and some drivers did not see Defendants' ads. While there may be factual discrepancies, the Defendants do not challenge that the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class members raise the same claims arising out of their work under substantially identical leases and contract hauling agreements. Judge Campbell concludes the Plaintiffs have met the typicality prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(3). 4. Adequacy of Representation The adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the "representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The Plaintiffs assert that the interests of the Named Plaintiffs are not in conflict with the other unnamed class members, and that the Named Plaintiffs possess the same interests and suffer the same injuries as the unnamed class members. The Defendants assert that the Named Plaintiffs are not adequate representatives because they are not typical members of the putative class. Judge Campbell holds that the Defendants are correct that "typicality merges somewhat with the first part of the test for adequate representation because in the absence of typical claims, the class representative has no incentives to pursue the claims of the other class members." However, having already found that the typicality prong is satisfied in the present case, the Judge is not persuaded by the Defendants' argument and concludes the Plaintiffs have met the adequacy prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(4). B. Rule 23(b) Rule 23(b)(3) classes must meet predominance and superiority requirements, that is, questions of law or fact common to class members must predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and class treatment must be superior to other available methods. Moreover, although not explicitly stated in Rule 23 the class definition must be sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member of the proposed class. 1. Predominance To meet the predominance requirement, a plaintiff must establish that issues subject to generalized proof and applicable to the class as a whole predominate over those issues that are subject to only individualized proof. Plaintiffs seeking class certification based on predominance do not need to prove that each element of a claim can be established by class-wide proof, rather they need to prove that common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual class members. a. Count Two: Fraud About the Owner Operator Program The Plaintiffs' fraud claim is based on the Defendants' allegedly fraudulent inducement of drivers to enter into the Owner Operator program. They argue that common questions predominate with respect to this claim because (1) whether the Defendants' statements were false, (2) with knowledge of the statement's falsity or utter disregard for its truth, (3) with the intent of inducing reliance on the statement, and (4) the statement was reasonably relied upon are all issues that can be proved through common class-wide proof. In their response, the Defendants assert that the issues of (1) which ads were viewed/what representation were made and when and (2) whether a driver acted reasonably in relying on the ads are subject to individualized proof because the ads had substantively different content and whether reliance was reasonable requires consideration of each driver's specific circumstances and experience in the industry. Judge Campbell finds that common issues predominate for the Plaintiffs' fraud claim. The nature of misrepresentations the Defendants allegedly made to the class members in the present case are fundamentally the same -- that the Defendants' lease purchase program offered income and mileage opportunities with an average of 2400-2700 miles per week or $1.45-$1.85 cents per mile, and the Plaintiffs have presented evidence that members of the class received materially uniform misrepresentations from the Defendants. b. Count Three: Misrepresentation About the Owner Operator Program The Plaintiffs assert that their negligent misrepresentation claim is certifiable for the same reasons and to the same extent as the fraud claim because whether the Defendants acted intentionally or negligently turns on the evidence of their knowledge and can be established on a class-wide basis without testimony from the individual class members. The Defendants assert that class certification on the Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim should be denied for the reasons they contend class certification on their fraud claim fails. For the same reasons he found common issues predominate for the Plaintiffs' fraud claim, Judge Campbell finds that common issues predominate for the Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim. c. Count Four: Procedural and Substantive Unconscionability The Plaintiffs assert that the question of procedural unconscionability is common to the class and appropriately decided on a class-wide basis because the circumstances at the time the parties executed the Contract and Lease are the same for the class. The Plaintiffs argue that substantive unconscionability is common to the class and appropriately decided on a class-wide basis because the terms of the Agreement are the same for the class. In their response, the Defendants assert that individualized inquiries will predominate over common questions for the Plaintiffs' procedural unconscionability claim because some drivers felt like they had "ample time" to look at the Agreement before they signed. Based on the foregoing, Judge Campbell finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that common questions predominate for their unconscionability claims. d. Count Five: Unjust Enrichment due to Employee Misclassification The Plaintiffs assert a claim for unjust enrichment if the Court finds the Agreement is unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. In their response, the Defendants assert the issues of whether the drivers were misclassified and whether plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Defendants that would be inequitable for them to retain would need to be analyzed on an individualized basis. The Judge holds that common issues predominate for the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. e. Count Six: Federal Forced Labor The Plaintiffs assert that if the jury finds that the threat of harm contained in their Agreements was sufficiently coercive to force workers to work for the Defendants, that finding would apply on a class-wide basis as class members signed substantially similar Contracts and Leases. In their response, the Defendants contend that "whether a reasonable person would feel coerced to continue based on the terms of the agreements, is undoubtedly an individualized inquiry, which would again be required to determine whether any Driver continued working against their will because they felt threatened with serious financial harm. Judge Campbell holds that the question of whether a threat of harm is sufficiently coercive is evaluated according to an objective "reasonable person" standard. As a result, contrary to the Defendants' position, there will be no need for individual inquiries to determine whether the threat of harm contained in Plaintiffs' Agreements was sufficiently coercive to force workers to work for the Defendants. The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have met the predominance requirement for their forced labor claim. f. Count Seven: Truth in Leasing Act Violations The Plaintiffs assert that the issue of whether the Lease and Contract violate the Truth in Leasing Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 14704 ("TILA"), is subject to generalized proof and applicable to the class as a whole because the Defendants entered into substantively identical Contracts and Leases with all the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs argue that the fact finder can look at one Contract and Lease and decide for the entire class whether the Contract and Lease violated the TILA. In their response, relying exclusively on out of circuit authority, the Defendants argue that certification of the Plaintiffs' TILA claim is not proper due to differences in individualized damages. However, "individual damages calculations do not preclude class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)" in the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, Judge Campbell holds that common issues predominate for the Plaintiffs' TILA claim. g. Count Eight: Breach of Contract with Respect to Compensation Schedule The Plaintiffs assert that common questions predominate with respect to this claim because all class members signed substantially the same Contract Hauling Agreement with the same compensation terms and were all compensated by Defendants in the same way. The Defendants argue that the issue of breach will be subject to only individualized proof because not all drivers had the same versions of the contract or were paid under the same compensation structure. In their reply, the Plaintiffs reiterate that to determine whether the contract was breached and how much a driver is due for that breach is simply a matter of determining the number of miles driven each week as reported on driver's weekly settlement sheets and recalculating the amount that should have been paid for those miles under the wage term in the Contract. Judge Campbell finds that the Plaintiffs have met the predominance requirement for their breach of contract claim. 2. Superiority To satisfy the superiority requirement, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that "a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." In undertaking this analysis, the Court examines four factors: (A) The class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. Judge Campbell finds that these factors weigh in favor of class certification. First, the relatively small amount of individual damages and the similarity of claims give class members little interest in individually controlling separate actions. Second, concentration of these claims in the Court is desirable, as it will streamline the resolution of the claims and conserve judicial and litigation resources. Finally, the Court is aware of no particular difficulties associated with the management of the class action, especially given the current stage of the litigation. Thus, for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3), a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication in the instant case. 3. Class Definition and Ascertainability of the Class Under the ascertainability requirement, the Plaintiffs must show "that the members of the class are capable of specific enumeration. This requirement is satisfied with a class description that is sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for a court to determine whether a particular individual is a member by reference to objective criteria. In the present action, the Plaintiffs seeks to certify a class with the following description: "All truck drivers who leased a truck from New Horizons Leasing, Inc. to drive for Western Express, Inc. who executed a Contract Hauling Agreement at any time during the period from the inception of the Owner Operator Program in 2014 up through the date of final judgment herein." Judge Campbell agrees with the Plaintiffs that the class definition is both definite and relies upon objective criteria to determine membership. Specifically, membership in the class is determinable through records maintained by Defendants. The Judge notes that the Defendants do not raise any objection relating to the ascertainability requirement. As such, he finds that the definition the class is sufficiently definite. With that, the Plaintiffs have carried their burden in establishing that their proposed class should be certified under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An appropriate order will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/672r4wh4 from Leagle.com. ZYNERBA PHARMA: Whiteley Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT WHITELEY and HARRY BERGER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ARMANDO ANIDO, and JAMES E. FICKENSCHER, Case No. 2:19-cv-04959-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiffs Scott Whiteley and Harry Berger ask the Court to enter an order: a. finally approving the settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Armando Anido, and James E. Fickenscher; and b. determining that Class treatment is appropriate. Zynerba is a specialty pharmaceutical company. The Company develops next-generation synthetic cannabinoid therapeutics for transdermal delivery for patients with significant unmet medical needs. Zynerba Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector and patients in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3joylaT at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Proposed Settlement Class, are: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Jing Chen, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com jchen@rosenlegal.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com taweinrib@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 229-8811 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***