/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210818.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 18, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 159 Headlines ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline AETNA INC: Peters Must File Class Cert. Brief by Sept. 1 ALTICOR INC: Class Action Over 401(k) Fees Can Proceed AMERICAN FAMILY: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Nix Drug Price Fixing Suit Pending APHRIA INC: Must Face Securities Class Action in Ontario ARCONIC CORP: Howard Consolidated Suit Underway AREA WIDE: Nelson Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action ATHIRA PHARMA: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 24 Deadline ATI PHYSICAL: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Class Claims BAUSCH HEALTH: Backed by J&J in Shower to Shower Litigation BAUSCH HEALTH: Dismissal of Gutierrez Suit Under Appeal BAUSCH HEALTH: Final Approval of Settlement Under Appeal BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement Reached in RICO-Related Class Suit BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Class Action Ongoing BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit in Delaware Underway BLUE APRON: Settlement in IPO Related Suit Gets Final Nod BOOKING HOLDINGS: German Hotel Association Suit Underway CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over Sugar Free Claims CARRIAGE SERVICES: Chinchilla Putative Class Suit Underway CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Medel Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey CHARLOTTE, NC: Court Dismisses Driver Privacy Class Action CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline CLARK COUNTY, NV: Allison Must File Individual Suit by Sept. 28 CLEVELAND, OH: Water Department Sued Over Unfair Billing Practices CLIPPER MAGAZINE: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California COINBASE GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline CONCHO RESOURCES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 28 Deadline CONSOL ENERGY: Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing CREDIT.COM INC: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Buell TCPA Suit Nixed CUMULUS MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Pending DAVITA INC: Faces Pena Putative Class Suit in Illinois EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Court Approves Olenik Settlement Deal ELI LILLY: Actos-Related Class Suits in Canada Dismissed ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation Over Insulin Products ELI LILLY: Faces Mosaic Health Purported Class Suit EPIC AIRCRAFT: Hanney Files Suit in D. Oregon EVERI HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 4 EVOQUA WATER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 1 EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss ComEd Customers' Suit Pending EXELON CORP: Discovery in ComEd's Lobbying Related Suit Ongoing EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Pending EXKLUSIV RESORTS: Club Members Appeal S$1,500 Class Action Award FREDDIE MAC: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Underway GRACIA FASHION: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GREENSKY INC: California Court Partially Stays Beylea Class Suit GREYSTAR REAL: Class Cert. Response Filing Extended to Sept. 13 HANAH LIFE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Antitrust Class Action in N.C. Over Monopoly HEATHER MUELLER: Class Suit Filed in D. Minnesota HOLY SEE: Hurn Files Suit in N.D. New York HONDA AIRCRAFT: DM Volbleu Files Suit in E.D. Texas HONEY-CAN-DO: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOST HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Blount Has Prelim. Approval HOUSEHOLD STAFFING.COM: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending INVESTINET LLC: Disla Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey JIGGY PUZZLES: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Sault City Mulls Joining Opioid Class Action JPMORGAN CHASE: E.D. California Dismisses Bouskos Class Suit LA MER EYE: Zimmerman Law Files Class Action Over Under Eye Cream LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Block & Leviton Named Lead Counsel in Morton Suit LENDINGTREE LLC: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona LOANCARE LLC: Six Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia LOUISIANA: LDH Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Youth Benefits MALLINCKRODT PLC: Appeal on Stay of Strougo Suit Denied MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shaver Putative Class Suit Further Stayed MAMMOTH ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in LeJeune Class Suit MAMMOTH ENERGY: Settlement in Securities Court Gets Initial OK MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Putative Class Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Enters Consumer Track Briefing Sched Order MASTERWORKS.IO: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class in OLEPTF Suit MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Putative Class Suit Underway METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Bid to Compel Discovery in Heras Suit Denied MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina NASDAQ INC: Still Defends City of Providence Case NETFLIX INC: Fort Scott Files Video Franchise Fee Class Action NIKOLA CORP: Court to Reevaluate Lead Plaintiff in UCL Related Suit OATLY GROUP: Gross Law Firm Reminds of September 24 Deadline OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit in NY Pending ONESPAN INC: Almendariz Securities Class Suit Dismissed ORIGINAL PAPERBACKS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ORLANDO BATHING SUIT: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California PLUM PBC: Court Appoints Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Baby Food Suit PORSCHE AG: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Warranty Repairs PREFERRED CAREGIVERS: Court Junks Badon Bid to Certify Class PTC INC: 401(K) Plan Related Suit in Massachusetts Underway RADIUS GLOBAL: Daidone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Millman & Powell Won't Be Tried Separately REALOGY GROUP: Appeal in Whitlach Putative Class Suit Pending RENOVACARE INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 14 Deadline ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Bid to Reconsider Remand of Gordon Suit Denied SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Amend Sanchez Putative Suit Pending SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Initial OK of Ruf-Tepper Settlement Pending SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Agar Class Action Stayed SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Kelley Class Suit Ongoing SPORTSTRADE INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STABLE ROAD: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline TOYOTA MOTOR: Menzel Files Suit in M.D. Florida TRANSUNION LLC: Greenberg Traurig Attorney Discusses Court Ruling TRUCK INSURANCE: 54-40 Brewing Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TRUCK INSURANCE: R2B2 Suit Removed to W.D. Washington UNITED STATES: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over OPT Delays UNITED THERAPEUTICS: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to Florida VALARIS LIMITED: Zhang Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal VALE SA: Plan for Distribution of Securities Suit Settlement OK'd VALEANT PHARMA: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling WALMART INC: Barton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over Inspection Fees WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement in Merger Related Suits Gets Final OK WYNN RESORTS: Nevada Court Pares Down Securities Class Action XEROX CORP: Time to Perfect Appeal in Ribbe Extended to Sept. 13 XPO LOGISTICS: Dismissal of Labul Class Suit Under Appeal XPO LOGISTICS: Trial in Alvarez, Arrellano Suits Set for September ZYMERGEN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 4 Deadline ZYMERGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline ZYNGA INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in I.C. Data Breach Suit ********* ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming September 27, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased AdaptHealth Corp. ("AdaptHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AHCO) securities between November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their AdaptHealth investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On July 19, 2021, Jehoshaphat Research published a report alleging, among other things, that AdaptHealth obscured its true organic growth by, "[r]etroactively changing past organic growth numbers to be higher, with no disclosure about the change." It further alleged that, "[w]hile management claims (and consensus estimates reflect) an organic growth trajectory of 8-10%, AHCO is in fact experiencing double-digit organic decline." The report noted that the Company's attempts to manipulate its organic growth trajectory are "a blatant violation of non-GAAP disclosure rules, for which companies get into huge trouble." On this news, AdaptHealth's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or approximately 6%, to close at $23.96 per share on July 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its organic growth trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic growth numbers without disclosing the changes, in violation of SEC regulations; (2) accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its financial prospects; and (3) 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 or otherwise acquired AdaptHealth securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 27, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] AETNA INC: Peters Must File Class Cert. Brief by Sept. 1 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peters v. Aetna Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00109 (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Martin Reidinger enters an order granting motion for extension of time to file supplemental briefs text of order: -- The parties' joint motion is granted, and the Plaintiff shall have through and including September 1, 2021, within which to file a supplemental brief regarding class certification. -- The Defendants shall have through and including October 1, 2021, within which to file their responsive brief. The Plaintiff shall have through and including October 15, 2021, within which to file a reply. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Racketeering Act. Aetna is an American-managed health care company that sells traditional and consumer-directed health care insurance and related services, such as medical, pharmaceutical, dental, and behavioral health.[CC] ALTICOR INC: Class Action Over 401(k) Fees Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Amway parent company Alticor Inc. must face claims that it mismanages its $1.2 billion 401(k) plan by offering bad investments and overpaying on fees, after a federal judge in Michigan allowed the proposed class action to proceed in its entirety. Amway argued that it improved the plan in recent years by moving to cheaper and better-performing investments and lowering the plan's annual administrative fees. But retirement plan fiduciaries have an ongoing duty to prudently manage the plan, and Amway can't use late-made changes to avoid liability for earlier periods of alleged mismanagement, Judge Paul L. Maloney said in an opinion. [GN] AMERICAN FAMILY: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq., Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq, and Gregory A. Nylen, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, discussed court rulings in the law firm's Class Action Litigation Newsletter - Summer 2021: Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuit. , in an article for The National Law Review, discussed court rulings in the law firm's Class Action Litigation Newsletter - Summer 2021: Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuit. Highlights from this issue include: Supreme Court rules that class members who did not suffer concrete harm do not have Article III standing to sue for violation of a federal statute. Supreme Court holds that generic nature of a misstatement is important evidence to show no price impact at the class certification stage, but that defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact. District court in the First Circuit (D. Mass.) grants motion to strike nationwide class allegations at the pleading stage. Second Circuit holds that a plaintiff cannot establish injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing where personally identifiable information was inadvertently disclosed and not yet misused by any third party. Third Circuit follows majority rule that American Pipe tolling applies to plaintiffs who file individual suits before a ruling on class certification. Fourth Circuit finds ERISA plaintiff established Article III standing and reverses denial of class certification. District court in Fifth Circuit (N.D. Tex.) denies class certification because individual issues predominate in case alleging fraud and misrepresentation. Divided Sixth Circuit panel affirms dismissal of proposed insurance coverage class action. Seventh Circuit affirms summary judgment for defendant in consumer class action, finding no reasonable consumer would be materially misled by alleged misrepresentations. Eighth Circuit reverses class certification, holding that plaintiff's expert's computer technology and algorithm cannot overcome individualized inquiry into economic loss. Ninth Circuit reverses approval of class action settlement, holding that under revised Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii), a district court must review a proposed class settlement for unfair collusion. D.C. district court permits tolling of putative class members' claims under American Pipe because they are based on the same acts and will be proven by the same evidence as prior claims. Sixth Circuit Wilkerson v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 997 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2021) Divided Sixth Circuit panel affirms the dismissal of a proposed Ohio class-action suit seeking payment of taxes and fees in insurance payouts for totaled cars. Wilkerson, a driver with an automotive insurance policy with American Family Insurance Company, was in a car accident and suffered a total loss. She sued American Family on behalf of a putative class of insureds after American Family refused to reimburse the taxes and fees that she paid for her new car as a part of the "actual cash value" under the policy terms. Wilkerson argued that excluding the taxes and fees from the "actual cash value" was a breach of contract under the policy, which stated that American Family "will pay for loss of or damage to your insured car and its equipment, less the deductible." American Family moved to dismiss, contending that other language in the policy controlled. Concluding that "actual cash value" was unambiguous and did not include taxes and fees, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed. The Sixth Circuit panel affirmed in a 2-1 decision. The majority opinion acknowledged that the phrase "actual cash value of stolen or damaged property" could carry some ambiguity. Relying on Ohio rules for contractual interpretation, the court recognized that "actual value" could mean "the measure of damages for the loss or destruction of personal property is the market value" or "the replacement cost minus normal depreciation for the damaged car." But considering the four corners of the policy, the court concluded that American Family's policy confirms that "actual cash value" means market value only. Otherwise, the court explained, American Family provisions limiting liability to (1) "the actual cash value of the stolen or damaged property" or (2) "the amount necessary to repair or replace the property" would be rendered "incoherent" under the plaintiff's interpretation. Bradford v. Team Pizza, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-60, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99413 (S.D. Ohio May 26, 2021) Southern District of Ohio adds to growing circuit split, ruling that employer's reimbursement of vehicle-related expenses not bound by IRS reimbursement rate method. In this minimum-wage FLSA collective action, pizza delivery drivers sued Team Pizza Inc., a company operating a portfolio of pizza delivery stores in Ohio. The plaintiffs alleged that Team Pizza "violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA and Ohio laws by requiring delivery drivers to pay for automobile expenses and other job-related expenses out of pocket and not properly reimbursing them for these expenses." The dispute turned on the Department of Labor's anti-kickback regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 531.35, which requires that employers pay minimum wages "finally and unconditionally" or "free and clear" of job-related expenses. Under the regulation, "if it is a requirement of the employer that the employee must provide tools of the trade which will be used in or are specifically required for the performance of the employer's particular work, there would be a violation of the law in any workweek when the cost of such tools purchased by the employee cuts into the minimum or overtime wages required to be paid under the law." Here, the alleged "work tools" were pizza delivery vehicles. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to reimbursement under the IRS mileage reimbursement rates, while Team Pizza argued that only a "reasonable approximation" method is required. Federal courts have differed on how the FLSA treats the reimbursement of pizza delivery drivers' vehicle expenses. Some courts (including district courts in Ohio and Illinois) have held that the IRS mileage reimbursement rate is the proper standard. Conversely, other courts (including district courts in Colorado, Kansas, New York, and Missouri) have decided that the FLSA does not require employers to use the IRS rate but instead allows them "reasonably approximate" pizza delivery drivers' vehicle expenses. The approaches differ depending on whether the anti-kickback regulation is deemed ambiguous. Courts adopting the IRS reimbursement rate method have determined that the anti-kickback regulation is ambiguous because it lacks guidance on how the mileage rate should be calculated. Other courts have adopted the reasonable approximation standard set forth in FLSA regulations because they explain how reimbursements are treated for calculating overtime rates. Despite another Southern District of Ohio decision adopting the mileage-reimbursement-rate approach, the court in this case sided with Team Pizza. Relying on a plain-language interpretation of the FLSA regulation, the court found that the anti-kickback regulatory language was not "genuinely ambiguous" and ruled that Team Pizza could "reasonably approximate" the vehicle-related expenses and was not required to use the actual or IRS rate to comply with the FLSA. Seventh Circuit Weaver v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc., No. 20-2235, 2021 WL 2678801 (7th Cir. June 30, 2021) Seventh Circuit affirms trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant on the basis that plaintiff offered no evidence from which a reasonable consumer could prove that the mere risk of a presence of BPA or pentobarbital rendered the phrase "biologically appropriate" misleading and plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that a reasonable consumer would be materially misled by representations regarding "fresh regional ingredients" or outsourcing. This appeal arose from the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, a manufacturer of pet food. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Champion Petfoods USA Inc. misrepresented its dog food in three ways: (1) stating that the food was "biologically appropriate"; (2) stating that it included fresh, regional ingredients; and (3) stating that it is "never outsourced" and is "prepared" in Champion's kitchens. Plaintiff argued that because there was a risk that the food was contaminated with Bisphenol A ("BPA") and pentobarbital through the supply chain, the food was not "biologically appropriate." Plaintiff further argued that because the dog food was not made solely with fresh ingredients, the label representation that it features fresh ingredients was false. Finally, plaintiff asserted that the representation "never outsourced" was false because some of the ingredients were sourced internationally. The Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment regarding the "biologically appropriate" representation finding that, with regard to BPA, plaintiff "offered no evidence that a reasonable consumer here would interpret 'biologically appropriate' as certifying the product was BPA-free" and, with regard to pentobarbital, plaintiff "lacks standing because he failed to show that the dog food he purchased was at risk of containing pentobarbital." Similarly, the Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment on the fresh, regional ingredients claim and the "never outsourced" claim because the packaging did not state that it was made with "100% fresh regional ingredients" and plaintiff did not offer evidence showing that a reasonable consumer would be materially misled by the representations. MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 994 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2021) Seventh Circuit holds that, by failing to move to compel discovery in the district court, plaintiff could not complain on appeal that defendant was not responsive to the general discovery requests served during class discovery. Plaintiff debt collectors brought a class action against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Two years prior, the Seventh Circuit decided an appeal in litigation between the same parties where the district court had dismissed plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing, affirming the district court's ruling finding that plaintiffs had to identify specific examples of unreimbursed payments to demonstrate the existence of an actual injury. The appeal in this case arose from the trial court's grant of State Farm's motion for summary judgment. The district court ruled that, while plaintiffs pled a concrete, individualized injury through an illustrative beneficiary, they failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment. Ultimately, the evidence showed that the reimbursement of physical therapy at issue for the illustrative beneficiary was for an injury that occurred prior to the car accident from which the claim arose. As a result, the district court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that they needed additional discovery to oppose State Farm's summary judgment motion. In particular, plaintiffs sought additional non-party discovery related to three additional illustrative beneficiaries that had not been pled and asserted that State Farm was not responsive to general discovery requests during class discovery. The Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs could not complain about what transpired during discovery when they never filed any motions to compel State Farm to respond to a single request in the district court. Lukis v. Whitepages Inc., 19 C 4871, 2021 WL 1600194 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2021) District court denies motion to strike class allegations based on matters outside the pleadings rather than on flaws inherent to the class as alleged in the complaint. In this putative class action under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, the district court was presented with multiple motions, including Whitepages Inc.'s motion to strike class allegations. Whitepages asserted that plaintiff's testimony demonstrated that she was an inadequate class representative, and that class counsel was inadequate for putting her forward as the named plaintiff. The court noted that Whitepages's motion to strike relied heavily on evidence outside the pleadings and noted that it is unclear whether a motion to strike class allegations can properly go beyond the complaint. The court reviewed authority and concluded that the majority rule was that a motion to strike class allegations must be limited to the face of the complaint. The court thus denied the motion to strike. Eighth Circuit Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., 995 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2021) Eighth Circuit holds that technology cannot overcome individualized inquiry into economic loss in duty of best execution case. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a brokerage company, violated its duty of best execution by routing trades to best profit the company rather than the customer. The plaintiff sought relief on behalf of both himself and a putative class. The magistrate judge recommended denial of Rule 23(b)(3) class certification due to a lack of predominance. He reasoned that each class member's economic loss would depend on an order-by-order analysis and thus defeat Rule 23's common issue requirement. However, the district court disagreed and granted class certification based on the plaintiff's expert, who presented an algorithm designed to "solve the predominance problem" and estimate each class member's economic loss. Finding that economic loss was an individualized inquiry, the Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification. The court noted that economic loss associated with duty of best execution violations was a more difficult damages assessment than standard broker's fraud claims. This contributed to the challenge of certifying a best execution case, as the court highlighted in relying on a Third Circuit decision that also denied certification for similar claims, Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2001). Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit concluded: "[D]espite advances in technology, individual evidence and inquiry is still required to determine economic loss for each class member. . . . Advanced computing power can expedite that determination, but it cannot change its underlying nature by converting individual experience into common evidence." In addition, the court determined that the plaintiff sought to represent an improperly defined class. The class definition incorporated two elements of the claim -- those seeking best execution and those sustaining economic loss. In doing so, class membership depended on having a valid claim, allowing "putative class members to seek a remedy but not be bound by an adverse judgment." For both reasons, the Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification and remanded the case. Ahmad v. City of St. Louis, 995 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2021) Eighth Circuit determines class certification is premature where Rule 23(b)(2) relief seeks to remedy discrete experiences of different named plaintiffs. The three named plaintiffs sought to represent a putative class of protesters who allegedly had been unconstitutionally exposed to chemical agents, subjected to excessive force and improper searches, and arrested. Each of the named plaintiffs had experienced one of these actions, and they collectively sought injunctive relief against the City of St. Louis to limit police authority to interfere in public demonstrations. Under Rule 23(b)(2), the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, noting that the city had acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the protesters' allegations. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that class certification had been premature. Although Rule 23(b)(2) certification may be appropriate for injunctive or declaratory relief, Rule 23(b)(2) classes require "even greater cohesiveness" than Rule 23(b)(3) classes because (b)(2) class members cannot opt out. As such, class certification is only appropriate where the same injunctive or declaratory relief would remedy all of the class members' injuries. In this case, each of the three named plaintiffs experienced a different injury, but they attempted to bring all three under the same umbrella by seeking broad injunctive relief, phrasing their request as "one super-claim." The court rejected this approach. Because the evidence at this stage had not established that a single injunction would remedy each of the plaintiffs' -- and thus, class members' -- injuries, the Eighth Circuit reversed the certification ruling as premature. Donelson v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., 999 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2021) Eighth Circuit holds motion to strike class allegations does not waive right to arbitrate and may be considered prior to a motion for class certification. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement for the defendant-brokers to handle the plaintiff's financial trading. This agreement contained an arbitration clause that required arbitration for all disputes except putative or certified class actions. After trading practices allegedly went wrong, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendants for violations of various federal securities laws and regulations. The defendants simultaneously moved to strike the class allegations and compel arbitration in line with the agreement. The district court denied both requests. On appeal, the plaintiff asserted that, by seeking to strike the class allegations, the defendants had waived their right to arbitrate under the agreement. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, stating that a party may waive their right to arbitrate if they invoke the "litigation machinery" by engaging in the litigation process and seeking decisions on the merits. However, the court determined that filing a motion to strike class allegations in conjunction with the motion to compel arbitration did not run afoul of the defendants' right to arbitrate. In fact, it complemented this right because it addressed the single exception to the arbitration clause -- a putative or certified class action. The court next considered whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to strike the class allegations. Circuits are split on whether it is premature for a court to strike class allegations under Rule 12(f) prior to a motion for class certification where certification is a "clear impossibility." The Eighth Circuit determined it is not premature. Striking class allegations prior to certification briefing aligns with Rule 23(c)(1)(A), which allows courts to discern certification "at an early practicable time" without limiting that decision to the timing of motion practice. Requiring the defendants to delay this request would not only "needlessly force the parties to remain in court" when they had previously agreed to arbitrate but also risk the defendants' engaging in the "litigation machinery" and placing their arbitration right in jeopardy. As such, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff's causes of action lacked cohesion, involved individualized inquiries, and otherwise did not comply with Rule 23(b)(2) requirements. Aaron Van Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Layal Bishara, Andrea N. Chidyllo, Gregory Franklin, Brian D. Straw also contributed to this article. [GN] AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Nix Drug Price Fixing Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ AmerisourceBergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, over alleged price-fixing, market allocation and bid rigging of generic drugs. In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers, and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other drug distributors and industry participants. The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail pharmacies and healthcare providers. The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint. On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the court. AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally. AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. APHRIA INC: Must Face Securities Class Action in Ontario -------------------------------------------------------- Rochon Genova LLP disclosed that on August 6, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the plaintiff in Vecchio Longo Consulting Services Inc. v. Aphria Inc. et. al. (Court file No. CV-19-00614086-00CP) (the "Action") leave to proceed, with a global securities class action for misrepresentations pursuant to section 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act against Aphria Inc. and its former officers and directors Victor Neufeld and Cole Cacciavillani (the "Aphria Defendants"). In the same decision, the Court certified this secondary market shareholder claim as a class proceeding (the "Secondary Market Claim"), and appointed Vecchio Longo Consulting Services Inc. as representative plaintiff. In addition, the Court certified the misrepresentation claims in the Action pursuant to section 130 of the Ontario Securities Act ("Prospectus Claim") as a class action against the Aphria Defendants and securities underwriters Canaccord Genuity Corp., Clarus Securities Inc., Cormark Securities Inc., Haywood Securities Inc., and Infor Financial Group Inc. (the "Underwriters"), conditional upon class counsel bringing a motion within one hundred days of the decision for the appointment of a representative plaintiff for class members that purchased Aphria shares pursuant to a $258 million prospectus offering made by Aphria that closed on June 28, 2018 ("Prospectus Purchasers"). To facilitate the identification of Prospectus Purchasers who may serve as a representative plaintiff, the Underwriters are each ordered to deliver within thirty days of the decision an affidavit listing their respective purchasers of shares in the prospectus offering. Subject to the conditional certification of the Prospectus Claim, the class is defined as: "All persons other than Excluded Persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who acquired Aphria common shares during the Class Period, where Excluded Persons are defined as Defendants, their past and present subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, senior employees, partners, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns, and any individual who is a member of the immediate family of an Individual Defendant." The Class Period is defined as "the period of time after 07:00 ET January 29, 2018 until 08:25 ET December 3, 2018." Formal Notice and Opt-Out provisions will be by further Order of the Court. [GN] ARCONIC CORP: Howard Consolidated Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------- Arconic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated purported class action suit entitled, Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al. A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and Klaus Kleinfeld. A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering. The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice. On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members, the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading statements and omitted to state material information, including by allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks posed by Reynobond PE sales. The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product, including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its official website. The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources identified above were misleading. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on November 26, 2019. On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic Corporation and the individual defendants filed a letter apprising the Court of a recent decision by the Third Circuit and discussing its relevance to the pending motion to dismiss. Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on July 9, 2020. On June 23, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claim against ParentCo, certain officers and directors and the underwriters based on the registration statement for the Preferred Offering, with the exception of one statement and only as to purchases made before October 23, 2015. In addition, plaintiffs' claim based on ParentCo's statements in other SEC filings, in product brochures, and on websites was dismissed in its entirety as to Kleinfeld and dismissed in part and allowed in part as to ParentCo. The Court also dismissed the control-person liability claims in their entirety. The parties stipulated to an August 12, 2021 deadline for defendants to file an answer to the second amended complaint in light of the Court's partial dismissal. Arconic said, "Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, Arconic Corporation cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome." Arconic Corporation manufactures engineered products and forgings. The Company offers aluminum sheets, plates, and other extruded products for the aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation, brazing, and industrial markets. Arconic serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. AREA WIDE: Nelson Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL NELSON and KHARI PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE, INC.; and W.E.K. ENTERPRISES, LLC, formerly known as ROADTEK TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00895-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying this action and for court- authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); 2. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 3. directing a production by Defendants of names, job titles, last known mailing addresses, home and cell phone numbers, business and home email addresses, dates of employment, locations of employment, last four digits of Social Security Numbers, and dates of birth of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Court's Order; 4. granting the ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail, email, and text message to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with the Reminder Notice to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs; and 5. requiring Defendants to post the Notice in a conspicuous location at any place of employment where putative plaintiffs work, and to enclose said Notice in putative plaintiffs' paystubs. Area Wide Protective Inc provides transportation support and engineering services. WEK is in the lawn and garden services industry in Saint Paul Park, Minnesota. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iTiQsr at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Carl Nelson, Khari Porter, and all others similarly situated, are: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-Mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com - and - Francisco Mundaca, Esq. Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC 4830A 31st St., S., Suite A Arlington, VA 22206 Telephone: (202) 449-8527 Facsimile: (202) 517-9179 E-Mail: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com rtucci@spigglelaw.com ATHIRA PHARMA: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Athira Pharma, Inc.("Athira" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ATHA) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021 (the "Class Period"), including Athira common stock purchased pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") in September 2020. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Athira securities during the Class Period and/or in the IPO, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than August 24, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Athira investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Athira Securities Class Litigation Athira, headquartered in Bothell, Washington, is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of molecular technology in the treatment of neurological diseases, including Alzheimer's disease. In September 2020, Athira completed its IPO by issuing and selling approximately 13 million shares of common stock at $17.00 per share, for net proceeds of approximately $186 million. The actions allege that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted to state material adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the actions allege that defendants failed to disclose to investors that the doctoral research conducted by Athira's Chief Executive Officer and President, defendant Leen Kawas contained improperly altered images and constituted potential research misconduct. Kawas's research reportedly was foundational to Athira's efforts to develop treatments for Alzheimer's disease and cited in a patent licensed by Athira. On June 17, 2021, after markets closed, Athira announced that Kawas was placed on temporary leave pending an investigation by a special committee into "actions stemming from doctoral research Dr. Kawas conducted while at Washington State University." The same day, the scientific publication STAT reported that the investigation involves allegedly altered images appearing in four papers for which Kawas was the lead author. According to STAT, Kawas's research papers "are foundational to Athira's efforts to treat Alzheimer's" and her "doctoral work laid the biological groundwork that Athira continues to use in their approach to treating Alzheimer's." According to an investment analyst, the investigation could have "clear negative implications for how we/investors view the asset, and/or management credibility." On this news, the price of Athira common stock fell $7.09 per share, or 38.9%, from a closing price of $18.24 on June 17, 2021, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021, on heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich is an internationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility worldwide. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. [GN] ATI PHYSICAL: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. ("ATI" or the "Company") (NYSE: ATIP) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your ATI investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/ati-physical-therapy-inc/.You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On June 16, 2021, ATI completed its business combination with Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II ("FVAC II"), a special purpose acquisition company. On July 26, 2021, ATI reported its financial results for the second quarter of 2021. The Company reduced its fiscal 2021 guidance due to "the acceleration of attrition among [its] therapists in the second quarter and continuing into the third quarter." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.62, or 43%, to close at $4.72 per share on July 26, 2021, thereby injuring investors. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding ATI should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] BAUSCH HEALTH: Backed by J&J in Shower to Shower Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that in accordance with an indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson will continue to vigorously defend Bausch in each of the remaining actions related to Shower to Shower(R) body powder product that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to a grant of summary judgment. Since 2016, the Company has been named in a number of product liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower(R) body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to dismissals, thirty of such product liability suits currently remain pending. Potential liability (including its attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the Company, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. Twenty-eight of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that the use of Shower to Shower()R caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer, mesothelioma or breast cancer. The allegations in these cases include failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of consortium and/or punitive damages. The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Additionally, two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower(R). The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec). The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. On November 17, 2020, the British Columbia court issued a judgment declining to certify a class as to the Company or Shower to Shower(R), and at this time no appeal of that judgment has been filed. In accordance with the indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson will continue to vigorously defend the Company in each of the remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to a grant of summary judgment. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Dismissal of Gutierrez Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the appeal in the order of dismissal in Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL, is pending. On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, which was granted in April 2020 without prejudice. In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further, which was granted. In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief, Appellees' response briefs are currently due September 1, 2021. The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them and intend to defend each of these lawsuits vigorously. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Final Approval of Settlement Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the appeals on the court's order granting final approval of the settlement in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658, is pending. On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658). On January 31, 2021, the District Court issued an order granting final approval of this settlement. On February 4, 2021, Timber Hill LLC filed a notice of appeal of the Court's final approval order, which overruled its objections to the allocation of settlement proceeds as between common stock and options. On March 1, 2021, Cathy Lochridge filed a notice of appeal of the Court's final approval order, which overruled her objections as to the attorneys' fees awarded to class counsel. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement Reached in RICO-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that an agreement in principle has been reached in the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) related putative class suit. Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) on behalf of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Company-branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding: (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured's consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the consolidated putative class action that is subject to additional documentation and, thereafter, subject to court approval. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 18-cv-10246), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company's common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11, 2016. On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case No. 15-cv-07658). On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on February 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Timber Hill action, holding that this complaint was a legal nullity as a result of the June 11, 2018 consolidation order. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristin Mazzell, Sharon Shuler and George Winningham, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. George Oliver Berkeley County Coroner and Berkeley County, Case No. 2:20-cv-03937-DCN (D.S.C.) the Parties asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action for recovering overtime compensation under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and 2. defining the Putative Class as follows: "All current and former DeputyCoroners at any time from three years prior to the date the Court issues an Order Conditionally Certifying the Class ("Time Period")." 3. directing the Defendants provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the following for all members of the Putative Class, within 10 business days of an order: 1. Names; and 2. All known mailing addresses; and 4. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to complete the following: Within twenty-one (21) business days of an order, mail, via first class U.S. mail, a copy of the Notice and Consent Form to all members of the Putative Class using all known mailing addresses. The envelope shall have this information only for the Return Address: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW, LLC 652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A Charleston, SC 29403 Enclosed, with the Notice and Consent Form, there will be a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope using the name and mailing address of Plaintiffs' counsel, as contained in Section 3 of the Notice, for both the address and return address. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ATcbVl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW, L.L.C. 652 Rutledge Ave., Suite A Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (800) 385-8160 E-marybeth@mullaneylaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Bob J. Conley, Esq. Caroline Wrenn Cleveland, Esq. CLEVELAND & CONLEY, L.L.C. One Seventy-One Church Street, Suite 310 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 577-9626 E-mail: ccleveland@clevelandlaborlaw.com bconley@clevelandlaborlaw.com BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit in Delaware Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.). On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action against the Company and our directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.). The Complaint alleged that the Amendments did not receive the requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and asserted claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment. The Complaint sought, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments were not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments, including altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected at the 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms. The Complaint also sought costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees. On July 1, 2020, the Company filed their response to the Complaint and denied the claims asserted therein. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally. It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. BLUE APRON: Settlement in IPO Related Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement in the consolidated putative class action suit related to the company's initial public offering (IPO) has been granted final approval. The Company was subject to a consolidated putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO). The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain current and former officers and directors made material misstatements or omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus that caused the stock price to drop. Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and defendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018. On April 22, 2020, the Court entered an order (i) denying the motion to dismiss insofar as Plaintiffs' allegations pertained to certain of the disclosures in the registration statement and prospectus claimed by plaintiff, and (ii) narrowing the factual issues in the case. On August 11, 2020, the parties held a mediation after which they entered into a memorandum of understanding on August 14, 2020 regarding a proposed settlement. Discovery has been stayed since August 14, 2020. The Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement to resolve the class action litigation on October 28, 2020, which was subsequently amended on November 12, 2020. Under the terms of the settlement, a payment of $13.3 million is to be made by the Company and/or its insurers in exchange for the release of claims against the defendants and other released parties by the lead plaintiff and all settlement class members and for the dismissal of the action with prejudice. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 1, 2021 and the Company paid $1.0 million of the settlement amount into escrow, with the remaining $12.3 million balance of the settlement funded by the Company's insurers. The Company's contribution to the settlement represented the portion of its insurance retention amount, less the $1.0 million which had been paid by the Company as of December 31, 2020 to cover legal fees relating to this case and the related cases described below, as well as the settlement of the state court action described below. The court granted final approval of the settlement on May 10, 2021, and the deadline to appeal the court's final approval order has passed. The Company was also subject to two state putative class action lawsuits alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO, which were substantially similar to the above-referenced federal court action. One of the state court action was originally filed in the New York Supreme Court, but was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on September 15, 2020 and subsequently re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on October 2, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the Company settled this lawsuit, which did not have a material impact on the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. The second state lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on May 12, 2021. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BOOKING HOLDINGS: German Hotel Association Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Booking Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a German hotel association has initiated a class action lawsuit against Booking.com in Germany on behalf of a group of German hotels that alleges that the hotels overpaid commissions to Booking.com because of wide parity terms in the contracts between the hotels and Booking.com between 2006 and 2015. Booking.com is pursuing court proceedings in the Netherlands to declare that the Netherlands is the proper forum for this matter. Although the Company believes the claim to be without merit and intends to defend against the claim, if the hotel association were successful in its litigation and the Company were required to pay damages, the amount could be significant. The Company cannot reasonably estimate an amount of potential loss because there are several unknown variables at this early stage. Booking Holdings Inc. is an American travel technology company organized in Delaware and based in Norwalk, Connecticut, that owns and operates several travel fare aggregators and travel fare metasearch engines including namesake and flagship Booking.com, Priceline.com, Agoda.com, Kayak.com, Cheapflights, Rentalcars.com, Momondo, and OpenTable. The company is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over Sugar Free Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that a class-action lawsuit -- filed on behalf of consumers in California, New York, and nationwide -- alleges that Campbell Soup Company and Pepperidge Farm, Inc.'s Goldfish-brand snack products (the "Goldfish Products") are misleadingly labeled. Plaintiffs allege that the Goldfish products do not comply with 21 C.F.R. § 101.60 ("Nutrient content claims for the calorie content of foods") because they claim "0g Sugars" or "0g Total Sugars" (i.e, sugar free claims) without disclosing that they are "not a low calorie food," "not a reduced calorie food," or "not for weight control." Plaintiffs further allege that the sugar free claims misled consumers into thinking they were purchasing low calorie foods and gave Defendants a competitive advantage over similarly-positioned products in the market. Among other criteria, Section 101.60 requires that foods claiming to be "sugar free," "free of sugar," "no sugar," "zero sugar," "without sugar," "sugarless," "trivial source of sugar," "negligible source of sugar," or "dietarily insignificant source of sugar" contain less than 0.5 g sugar per serving and be labeled with a "not a reduced calorie food," "not a low calorie food, " or "not for weight control" disclaimer if the foods do not also meet the "low calorie" or "reduced calorie" criteria. The regulation does not reference the quantitative claims "0g Sugars" or "0g Total Sugars," although Plaintiffs allege that they are substantively identical to the claims delineated in the regulation. We remind readers that there is no private right to enforce FDA's labeling regulations and that a violation of a labeling regulation is not per se proof of consumer deception. The court instead must decide whether a "reasonable consumer" would be deceived by the labeling. In recent examples like the Champion Petfoods Case and Manuka Honey Case, the courts have required extrinsic evidence of consumer deception and have considered the full range of information available to the consumer, thus making it more difficult for plaintiffs to make this showing. [GN] CARRIAGE SERVICES: Chinchilla Putative Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Chinchilla v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004661. On May 19, 2021, a putative class action against the Company and several of the company's subsidiaries was filed. Plaintiff, a former employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees. Plaintiff claims that the Company failed to, among other things, pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks, pay overtime, provide accurately itemized wage statements, reimburse employees for business expenses, and provide wages when due. Carriage said, "At June 30, 2021, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any." Carriage Services, Inc., provides funeral and cemetery services and merchandise in the United States. It operates through two segments, Funeral Home Operations and Cemetery Operations. The Company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Medel Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cawley & Bergmann, LLC. The case is styled as Yeceni Medel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-15314-AET-DEA (D.N.J., Aug. 14, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC -- https://www.cawleyandbergmann.com/ -- is a debt collection company specializing in the recovery of delinquent consumer debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com CHARLOTTE, NC: Court Dismisses Driver Privacy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kristin L. Bryan, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that a federal court dismissed a federal driver privacy class action, granting the Defendant judgment on the pleadings. Hensley v. Order City of Charlotte, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146752 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2021). The court's ruling was based primarily on: (1) language in a contract that required parties to use driver data subject to the obligations of federal law and (2) legal issues previously addressed in Gaston v. Lexisnexis Risk Solutions, another driver privacy class action in the same jurisdiction that was resolved earlier this year. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12872 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2021). First, let's take a look at the (alleged) facts. As readers may recall from our prior coverage of Gaston v. Lexisnexis Risk Solutions, North Carolina law enforcement officers are required to document reportable vehicle crashes on a standard form promulgated by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles ("NCDMV") known as a DMV-349. When a DMV-349 has been completed by a N.C. law enforcement officer, it usually contains the following personal information about the drivers involved in the accident: (1) name, (2) date of birth, (3) gender, (4) residence address, and (5) NCDMV driver's license number. The Plaintiff in Hensley was involved in a motorcycle accident in North Carolina in 2017. The resulting DMV-349 prepared by the responding officer purportedly contained Plaintiff's personal information including his address; his date of birth; his North Carolina driver's license number; and his telephone number. Plaintiff alleged that since at least 2007 the city of Charlotte, North Carolina has placed unredacted copies of each DMV-349 "recently received" on the front desk of its records division so that the forms are available to the public. Although Plaintiff alleged that individuals go to the records division to review these DMV-349 reports for various purposes, including marketing, he claimed that "the City does not maintain any log or record identifying which accident reports have been looked at, the persons or entities that have reviewed any accident reports or the purpose for which any report was reviewed." Plaintiff additionally alleged that Charlotte contracted with PoliceReports US ("PRUS"), a company purchased by LexisNexis Claims Solutions ("LexisNexis"), to make DMV-349s available to the public on a LexisNexis website. Plaintiff filed suit under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), asserting that Charlotte made copies of his accident report containing his personal information available to the public at both the records division and through the LexisNexis website in violation of the DPPA. Plaintiff in Hensley sought to represent a putative class consisting of similarly situated individuals. The DPPA is a federal statute governing the sale and resale of certain "personal information" from motor vehicle records. Following the well-publicized murder of an actress in 1989 by a stalker (who had obtained her unlisted home address from a state DMV), the DPPA was enacted for the purpose of protecting drivers from violent crime. The DPPA was also intended to curb certain direct marketing and solicitation practices. The statute contains a private right of action. The court relying on Gaston found that Plaintiff's DPPA claim was deficient as a matter of law. First, in regards to Plaintiff's PRUS/LexisNexis allegations, the court noted that in Gaston it ruled that the city of Charlotte and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department ("CMPD") did not violate the DPPA by knowingly disclosing DPPA protected personal information to PRUS/LexisNexis. This was on the basis that the contract between the city of Charlotte and PRUS/LexisNexis explicitly required that PRUS/LexisNexis use the information "subject to the obligations of federal law." (emphasis in original). To put it otherwise, compliance with the federal DPPA was a required term of the parties' agreement. As such, the court found that "Plaintiff's allegations that he received marketing solicitations from law firms as a result of the improper disclosure of his personal information on the PRUS/LexisNexis website does not plausibly state a DPPA claim." (emphasis supplied). Nor did Plaintiff's allegations concerning the potential disclosure of his accident report from the CMPD records division counter fare any better. This was because, the court held, "there is admittedly no record of which accident reports were viewed by any member of the public nor has Plaintiff specifically alleged -- in the relevant pleadings -- that he received a solicitation as a result of the disclosure of DPPA protected personal information from that physical location rather than the PRUS/LexisNexis website." (emphasis in original). The court held that Plaintiff's complaint did not plausibly plead a cognizable violation of the DPPA and granted Defendant judgment on the pleadings. The case was dismissed. However, expect more cases like this going forward. Because the DPPA has a private right of action with liquidated damages, it has been a recent target of plaintiffs' attorneys seeking to bring novel theories of liability against entities that handle driver license data in pursuit of a large cash payout. Not to worry, CPW will be there to keep you informed of these developments as they occur. Stay tuned. [GN] CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Churchill Capital Corp IV ('Churchill' or the 'Company') (NYSE:CCIV) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Churchill securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period'). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cciv. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to deliver vehicles by spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a production of 557 vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles touted in the run-up to the merger with Churchill; 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cciv or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Churchill you have until August 30, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] CLARK COUNTY, NV: Allison Must File Individual Suit by Sept. 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RONALD J. ALLISON, Plaintiff v. CLARK COUNTY COURTS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01395-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gives the Plaintiff until Sept. 28, 2021, to submit a complaint on his own behalf to the Court in compliance with LSR 2-1. On July 26, 2021, the Plaintiff, an inmate currently located at Southern Adult Mental Health Services, submitted a document titled Class Action Lawsuit. He has not submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the full $402 filing fee in the matter. Judge Koppe notes that the Plaintiff has titled his document at Docket No. 1-1 Class Action Lawsuit. However, a person who is not represented by an attorney may not file a class action lawsuit. In addition, the Plaintiff's document at Docket No. 1-1 does not comply with Local Special Rule 2-1. Under LSR 2-1, a civil rights complaint filed by a person who is not represented by an attorney must be submitted on the form provided by the Court or must be legible and contain substantially all the information called for by the court's form. As such, the Judge grants the Plaintiff a one-time extension until Sept. 28, 2021, to submit a complaint on his own behalf to the Court in compliance with LSR 2-1. She also provides him a copy of the Court's Section 1983 complaint form with instructions. In addition, Judge Koppe also grants the Plaintiff a one-time extension to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis containing all three of the required documents, or in the alternative, pay the full $402 filing fee for the action by Sept. 28, 2021. Absent unusual circumstances, she will not grant any further extensions of time. If the Plaintiff does not file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three required documents or pay the full $402 filing fee by Sept. 28, 2021, the case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for the Plaintiff to file a new case with the Court when he has all three of the documents needed to file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full $402 filing fee. A dismissal without prejudice means the Plaintiff does not give up the right to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when he has all three documents needed to submit with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Alternatively, the Plaintiff may choose not to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and instead pay the full filing fee of $402 by Sept. 28, 2021 to proceed with the case. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koppe orders the Clerk of the Court to send to the Plaintiff the approved form for filing a Section 1983 complaint, instructions for the same, and a copy of his original document at Docket No. 1-1. The Plaintiff will have until Sept. 28, 2021, to submit a complaint on his own behalf to the Court in compliance with LSR 2-1. If the Plaintiff does not file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1 by Sept. 28, 2021, the case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for him to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when he is able to file a complaint in compliance with LSR 2-1. The Clerk of the Court will send the Plaintiff the approved form application to proceed in forma pauperis by an inmate, as well as the document entitled information and instructions for filing an in forma pauperis application. By Sept. 28, 2021, the Plaintiff will either pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action (which includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee) or file with the Court: (1) a completed Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for Inmate on the Court's approved form (i.e. pages 1 through 3 of the form with the inmate's two signatures on page 3); (2) a Financial Certificate properly signed by both the inmate and a prison or jail official (i.e. page 4 of the Court's approved form); and (3) a copy of the inmate's prison or jail trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. If the Plaintiff does not file a fully complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action by Sept. 28, 2021, the case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for the Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when the Plaintiff has all three documents needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full $402 filing fee. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/47kmfu67 from Leagle.com. CLEVELAND, OH: Water Department Sued Over Unfair Billing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ron Regan, writing for News 5, reports that at the same time the Cleveland Water Department is facing a federal class action lawsuit over its billing practices, the embattled agency is now accused of trying to squeeze thousands of dollars from the estate of a deceased customer. A lawsuit filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court alleges the water department has placed a tax lien on the home of a deceased customer to collect $9,540.72 in disputed water and sewer bills. Barbara McFarquhar died in 2016 at the age of 82, just months after the water department first began threatening to shut off her water, claiming she failed to pay enormous water bills for water that her family says was never used. McFarquhar, a stroke victim, was confined to her bed for 20 years and the family says there is no way she could possibly have used excessive water. The family also insists there were no leaks. The lawsuit was filed by her daughter, Jacqueline McFarguhar, after spending the lasts five years unsuccessfully attempting to resolve the issue. An exclusive 5 On Your Side investigation first uncovered widespread questions about the water department's billing practices in 2015 and prompted a federal class-action lawsuit in 2019 brought by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. The class-action lawsuit alleges the water department unfairly discriminates against customers and violates federal and state laws through the use of water tax liens on homes to collect unpaid, disputed water bills. The water department has declined to comment on the case because it is currently in litigation. Meanwhile, water department's lawyers have filed a motion in court asking the case be dismissed if McFarquhar does not hire an attorney to represent her in a reasonable time period. Water department lawyers say McFarquhar is prohibited from arguing the case under Ohio law. [GN] CLIPPER MAGAZINE: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clipper Magazine LLC, et al. The case is styled as William Loftus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clipper Magazine LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-06585 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Clipper Magazine -- https://clippermagazine.com/ -- is America's most trusted local advertising & marketing solutions provider offering a full line of outstanding digital and print options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 11 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. COIN Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1 PLL Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1 AHCO Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adapthealth-corp-f-k-a-dfb-healthcare-acquisitions-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * 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 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (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. Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ:PLL) PLL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2018 - July 19, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Piedmont Lithium Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Piedmont has not, and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits; (2) Piedmont failed to inform relevant people and governmental authorities of its actual plans; (3) Piedmont failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental authorities (including state and local authorities); (4) Piedmont and its lithium business does not have "strong local government support"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ:AHCO) AHCO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 11, 2019 - July 16, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 27, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/adapthealth-corp-f-k-a-dfb-healthcare-acquisitions-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=18439&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its organic growth trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic growth numbers without disclosing the changes, in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations; (ii) accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its financial prospects; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] CONCHO RESOURCES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 28 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming September 28, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Concho Resources Inc. ("Concho" or the "Company") (NYSE: CXO) common stock between February 21, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Concho investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/concho-resources-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. In 2018, Concho planned and constructed the Dominator Project ("Dominator") located in the Permian Basin. It consisted of 23 wells. On July 31, 2019, Concho revealed the wells at Dominator were spaced "too tight," leading the Company to reduce its active rig count to 18 (down from 33 in the first quarter of 2019) to avoid overshooting budgets. On this news, Concho's stock price fell 22% per share on August 1, 2019, thereby injuring investors. ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) acquired Concho in January 2021 and is also named as a defendant in the complaint. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the well spacing at Dominator was aggressive and highly risky, and premised on no reasonable basis to believe it would work as intended; (2) Concho's practice of implementing tighter well spacing was not relegated to a handful of "tests" and therefore more widespread than the market was led to believe; (3) it was known or recklessly disregarded that any measures to mitigate well spacing risks were non-existent and or/impossible; (4) these risks had manifested during the Class Period, causing underground well interference and permanently decreasing production, forcing the Company to scale back production targets and adopt more conservative spacing measures in its other projects; (5) it would take multiple quarters to unwind the impacts of the widespread well spacing failure; and (6) 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 or otherwise acquired Concho common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 28, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] CONSOL ENERGY: Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend the "Casey-Fitzwater" consolidated class action suit. A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company ("CCC"), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. ("COK"), CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan. Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated. On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class of retirees. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class certification was denied on all counts. On July 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Order denying class certification. The Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020. On October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order setting the trial date, which was held in February 2021. No ruling has been issued by the judge. The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend this suit. CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. CREDIT.COM INC: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Buell TCPA Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANGELA BUELL, Plaintiff v. CREDIT.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01055-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff Buell's class allegations. The decision is issued on the grounds that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020) ("AAPC"), renders the robocall restriction unconstitutional for the five-year period preceding the decision, thereby, significantly narrowing the putative class period. On Feb. 11, 2021, Plaintiff Buell filed a class action complaint against Defendant Credit.com, alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by making unsolicited, pre-recorded telemarketing calls. The Defendant provides credit counseling services. The Plaintiff has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since April 2013, and alleges that the Defendant called her personal cell phone three times in February 2021 and delivered three identical pre-recorded voicemails. She asserts that she did not consent to receive pre-recorded or telemarketing calls and was not seeking services from the Defendant or its partners. The Plaintiff seeks class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of two Classes: the Pre-recorded No Consent Class and the Do Not Call Registry Class. Only the putative Pre-recorded No Consent Class is the subject of Defendant's motion: Pre-recorded No Consent Class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) called (2) using a pre-recorded voice message, and (3) for whom the Defendant claim (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims they supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiff, or (b) they obtained the person's number in the same manner as Defendant obtained Plaintiff's number." On April 19, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the class allegations that fall within the period that the TCPA included a government-debt exception. On May 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an opposition. On May 10, 2021, the Defendant filed a reply. Discussion The Defendant moves to strike the class allegation of the "Pre-recorded No Consent Class" on the grounds that the class definition is overbroad in light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in AAPC. In AAPC, the Supreme Court held that the government-debt exception to the robocall restriction, enacted in November 2015, violated the First Amendment as a content-based restriction on speech. As a result of the finding in AAPC, the Defendant is asking the Court to narrow the Pre-recorded No Consent class period to the period beginning on July 6, 2020, the date of decision, and continuing through trial. AAPC and the constitutionality of the Government-Debt Exception The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the robocall restriction with the government-debt exception was unconstitutional, and if so, whether to invalidate the entire 1991 robocall restriction, or invalidate and sever the exception from the rest of the statute. First, and without a majority opinion, six members of the Supreme Court found that the exception was a content-based restriction in violation of the First Amendment because it favored debt-collection speech over political speech. i. Severability Having found the government-debt exception unconstitutional, the Supreme Court turned to whether the offending provision could be severed from the statute. Ultimately, a plurality (seven Members of the Court) determined that severability was appropriate because the remainder of the general robocall restriction was capable of being fully operative as a law, because it had functioned independently in the years prior to the addition of the government-debt exception. Since the government-debt exception was a relatively narrow exception to the broad robocall restriction, and severing it would not raise any other constitutional problems, the same plurality determined that severance cured the unequal treatment under the First Amendment, thereby preserving the robocall restriction. In closing the severability discussion, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, explicitly absolved government-debt collectors of liability for robocalls made during that time, but also stated that liability would still attach for anyone who violated the general robocall restriction between 2015 and 2020. Since a majority did not sign on to Judge Kavanaugh's entire opinion, there is disagreement among district courts as to whether footnote 12 is binding precedent or merely persuasive. ii. Whether severance is retroactive or prospective The Defendant argues that the inclusion of the unconstitutional government-debt exception renders the entire robocall restriction unconstitutional from its amendment in 2015 until the Supreme Court severed the exception in 2020. As a result, it contends that the general robocall exception can only be enforced prospectively. In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that, despite footnote 12 being contained in the three-Justice plurality opinion, seven Justices concurred in the severability discussion rendering the footnote binding. Judge Westmore agrees with the Plaintiff. She is persuaded by the district court's analysis in McCurley v. Royal Sea Cruises, Inc., No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS, 2021 WL 288164, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021), where the court held that footnote 12 was not dicta because it was joined by six other Justices. She notes that only Justices Gorsuch and Thomas dissented on the issue of severability. Furthermore, as the McCurley court noted, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan "would not have held the 2015 amendment to be unconstitutional at all, and they certainly agreed Defendant could be held liable." Finally, the Judge is not persuaded by the Defendant's reliance on reasy v. Charter Commc'ns., Inc., 489 F.Supp.3d 499, 503 (E.D. La. 2020, where the district court reasoned that the exception fundamentally altered the entire statute and required that it be enforced prospectively. In Creasy, the court held that the entire robocall restriction was void because "it itself was repugnant to the Constitution before the Supreme Court restored it to constitutional health in AAPC." The Judge, however, is unpersuaded by this rationale because the majority of sitting justices found it proper "to sever the 2015 government-debt exception and leave in place the longstanding robocall restriction." The Defendant's reliance on Hussain v. Sullivan Buick-Cadillac-GMC Truck, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-38-Oc-30PRL, 2020 WL 7346536, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2020), is similarly misplaced. In that case, the court found that "the 2015 amendment, adding the government-debt exception, changed an otherwise valid statute to an unconstitutional content-based restriction." The Hussain court's determination would be persuasive if the Supreme Court had struck down the entire 1991 robocall restriction. Instead, the Supreme Court only invalidated the 2015 government-debt exception. Accordingly, Judge Westmore finds that the TCPA's general robocall restriction remained intact from 1991 onward, which includes the entire putative class period, and requires that the pending motion to strike be denied. Conclusion For the reasons she set forth, Judge Westmore denied the Defendant's motion to strike. The Defendant will file an answer within 14 days of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yh7yvchc from Leagle.com. CUMULUS MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cumulus Media Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to dismiss the putative class action suit related to 401(k) Plan, is pending. On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging claims regarding the Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan. The case alleges that the Company breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and costs than other available investment options, causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to monitor other fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of Plan participants from February 24, 2014 through the date of any judgment. On May 28, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 17, 2020 the Court entered an order dismissing one of the individual plaintiffs and all claims against the Company except those that arose on or after February 24, 2019 (i.e., one year prior to the filing of the Complaint). On March 24, 2021, the Company filed a motion seeking dismissal of all remaining claims. The Company intends to continue to defend the case vigorously. Cumulus said, "The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate what effect the ultimate outcome might have, if any, on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Cumulus Media Inc., an audio-first media and entertainment company, owns and operates radio stations in the United States. It operates through two segments, Cumulus Radio Station Group and Westwood One. The company offers content through approximately 428 owned-and-operated stations in 87 United States media markets; and approximately 8,000 broadcast radio stations affiliates and various digital channels. Cumulus Media Inc. was incorporated in 2018 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. DAVITA INC: Faces Pena Putative Class Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ DaVita Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company faces a putative class action suit entitled, Pena v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, et al. On July 14, 2021, an indictment was returned by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado against the Company and its former chief executive officer in the matter of U.S. v. DaVita Inc., et al. The two count indictment alleges that purported agreements entered into by its former chief executive officer not to solicit senior-level employees violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. On July 16, 2021, a former DaVita employee filed a putative class action complaint in the matter of Pena v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, et al. in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois based on the allegations in the matter of U.S. v. DaVita Inc., et al. The complaint seeks to bring an action on behalf of the defendant and similarly situated individuals, including without limitation those employed by the Company between February 1, 2012 through June 30, 2019 as senior-level employees. The Company disputes the allegations in the indictment and the class action complaint, as well as the asserted violations of the Sherman Act, and intends to defend these actions accordingly. DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease (ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Court Approves Olenik Settlement Deal -------------------------------------------------------- Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court approved the Settlement Agreement in Olenik v. Lodzinski et al. and the Company paid the $3.5 million settlement shortly thereafter. On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. (EnCap), Bold, Bold Holdings and Oak Valley Resources, LLC. The complaint alleged that Earthstone's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution agreement dated as of November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the Bold Contribution Agreement), by and among Earthstone, Energy Holdings, LLC (EEH), Lynden US, Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold. The Plaintiff asserted that the directors negotiated the business combination pursuant to the Bold Contribution Agreement (the "Bold Transaction") to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in connection with the Bold Transaction. The suit sought unspecified damages and purported to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on behalf of all persons who held common stock up to March 13, 2017, excluding defendants and their affiliates. On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims were sufficient for pleading purposes. After engaging in extensive pre-trial discovery, the parties engaged in a mediation process that resulted in a non-binding settlement term sheet on September 21, 2020. The term sheet was translated into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release Agreement between the parties and was filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery for approval. The principal terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows: (i) a $3.5 million all-in cash settlement payment (the "Fund") to be funded by defendants and/or their insurers into an escrow account, (ii) a bi-lateral complete and full release of all claims against defendants and plaintiffs, and (iii) that 55% of the Fund (the derivative payment) be paid to Earthstone to be used as determined by management, according to their fiduciary duties and business judgment, 45% of the Fund (the class payment) be paid to members of the class or current stockholders of Earthstone. On March 31, 2021, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement and the Company paid the $3.5 million settlement shortly thereafter. The insurance carriers immediately reimbursed their agreed upon allocation of the settlement totaling $2.8 million and in addition, the Company has received $1.3 million from the derivative portion of the settlement, which is included as a reduction of Transaction costs in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the six months ended June 30, 2021. Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. ELI LILLY: Actos-Related Class Suits in Canada Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the lawsuits involving Actos have been dismissed. The company was named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda affiliates as a defendant in four purported product liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, which the company commercialized with Takeda in Canada until 2009, including one in Ontario filed December 2011 (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec filed July 2012 (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one in Saskatchewan filed November 2017 (Weiler v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al.), and one in Alberta filed January 2013 (Epp v. Takeda Canada Inc. et al.). In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused or contributed to their bladder cancer. An agreement to settle these actions became effective in May 2021, and the settlement claims administration process is ongoing. The lawsuits have been dismissed or discontinued. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation Over Insulin Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend several class action suits related to the company's insulin products. In December 2017, the company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Novo Nordisk, Inc. were named as defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey relating to insulin pricing seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (federal RICO Act). Separately, in February 2018, the company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, were named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same court, seeking damages under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and the federal RICO Act. In both In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and the MSP Recovery Claims litigation, the court dismissed claims under the federal RICO Act and certain state laws. In April 2021, the plaintiffs in In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation amended their complaint to allege additional state law claims for civil conspiracy and violations of state RICO statutes. Also, filed in the same court in November 2020, the company, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a purported class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the New Jersey RICO Act and antitrust law. That same group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United Health Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions in the same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. both initiated in March 2020, for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act. In September 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. In July 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the three antitrust claims alleged by plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation and denied dismissal of the RICO claims. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ELI LILLY: Faces Mosaic Health Purported Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company faces a purported class action suit initiated by Mosaic Health, Inc. In July 2021, the company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc., and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, were named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York by Mosaic Health, Inc. alleging antitrust and unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants' 340B distribution programs. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. EPIC AIRCRAFT: Hanney Files Suit in D. Oregon --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Epic Aircraft, LLC. The case is styled as Bruno Hanney, Paul Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Epic Aircraft, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 6:21-cv-01199-MK (D. Ore., Aug. 13, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract Actions for Breach of Contract. Epic Aircraft -- http://www.epicaircraft.com/-- is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer headquartered in Bend, Oregon and owned by the Russian company S7 Technics.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan J. Leiman, Esq. LEIMAN LAW, P.C. PO Box 5383 Eugene, OR 97405 Phone: (541) 345-2376 Email: alan@leimanlaw.com EVERI HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement final hearing in Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al., is set for October 4, 2021 Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. is a putative class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Division, Chancery Division. The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was substituted as the defendant on April 22, 2019. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleges that Everi FinTech and the Company (i) have violated certain provisions of Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by their failure, as agent to the original defendant, to properly truncate patron credit card numbers when printing financial access receipts as required under FACTA, and (ii) have been unjustly enriched through the charging of service fees for transactions conducted at the original defendant's facilities. Plaintiff sought an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The parties settled this matter on a nationwide class basis. The settlement has since received final approval from the court, and Everi has paid all funds required pursuant to the settlement. Distributions to class members are in process, and a final hearing is set for October 4, 2021, to report to the court on the distribution metrics and determine what remaining unclaimed funds, if any, may be distributed to a nonprofit charitable organization as necessary. Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi Games Holding Inc. and Everi Payments Inc. The Company operates through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. EVOQUA WATER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the final settlement approval hearing in the class action suit entitled, In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation, is set for November 1, 2021. In November 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company and senior management violated federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures in the period leading up to the Company's October 30, 2018 announcement of, among other things, (a) preliminary results for the full-year fiscal 2018 that were below previous expectations and (b) a transition from a three-segment structure to a two-segment operating model. In January 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and re-captioned the action as In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation. In March 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which asserted claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, members of the Company's board of directors, senior management, a former executive, AEA, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary public offering. The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's financial results of operations. The lawsuit sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and an award of costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class counsel. In March 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a portion of the claims, dismissing all claims predicated on supposedly intentional misstatements or omissions, which were brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The claims that remained were those brought under the Securities Act of 1933. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, the parties engaged in discovery, and lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in December 2020. On June 1, 2021, following mediation, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to settle the Securities Litigation (subject to Court approval) for $16.65 million, all of which will be covered by insurance. On July 8, 2021, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for November 1, 2021 to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement and dismiss the Securities Litigation. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss ComEd Customers' Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit initiated by Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) customers is pending. Three putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were filed in Illinois state court in the third quarter of 2020 seeking restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of ComEd customers. The cases were consolidated into a single action in October of 2020. In November 2020, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to intervene in the cases pursuant to an Illinois statute allowing CUB to intervene as a party or otherwise participate on behalf of utility consumers in any proceeding which affects the interest of utility consumers. On November 23, 2020, the court allowed CUB's intervention, but denied CUB's request to stay these cases. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated complaint, and ComEd and Exelon filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds on January 11, 2021. Briefing on that motion was completed on March 2, 2021. The parties agreed, on March 25, 2021, along with the federal court plaintiffs, to jointly engage in mediation. The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but no settlement was reached. Oral argument on the state court motion to dismiss was held on August 4, 2021. No ruling has yet been issued. Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. EXELON CORP: Discovery in ComEd's Lobbying Related Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the putative class action suit related to ComEd's lobbying activities, are currently engaged in discovery. A putative class action lawsuit against Exelon and certain officers of Exelon and ComEd was filed in federal court in December 2019 alleging misrepresentations and omissions in Exelon's SEC filings related to ComEd's lobbying activities and the related investigations. The complaint was amended on September 16, 2020, to dismiss two of the original defendants and add other defendants, including ComEd. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in November 2020. The court denied the motion in April 2021. On May 26, 2021, defendants moved the court to certify its order denying the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal. Briefing on the motion was completed in June 2021 and the motion remains pending. While that motion remains pending, the litigation has proceeded and in May 2021, the parties each filed respective initial discovery disclosures. On June 9, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs motion for leave to file a sur-reply to defendants' motion to dismiss, is pending. Four putative class action lawsuits against Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and Exelon were filed in federal court in the third quarter of 2020 alleging, among other things, civil violations of federal racketeering laws. In addition, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to intervene in these cases on October 22, 2020 which was granted on December 23, 2020. In addition, on December 2, 2020, the court appointed interim lead plaintiffs in the federal cases which consisted of counsel for three of the four federal cases. These plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January 5, 2021. CUB also filed its own complaint against ComEd only on the same day. The remaining federal case, Potter, et al. v. Exelon et al, differed from the other lawsuits as it named additional individual defendants not named in the consolidated complaint. The Potter plaintiffs decided not to move forward with their separate lawsuit at this time and voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice on April 5, 2021. ComEd and Exelon moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and CUB's complaint on February 4, 2021. Briefing on that motion was completed on March 22, 2021. On March 25, 2021, the parties agreed, along with the state court plaintiffs, to jointly engage in mediation. The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June 7, 2021 but no settlement was reached. On June 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply to defendants' motion to dismiss, to which ComEd and Exelon objected. The court has taken the motion for leave under advisement. Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. EXKLUSIV RESORTS: Club Members Appeal S$1,500 Class Action Award ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tay Peck Gek, writing for The Business Times, reports that the Pines members have appealed against the High Court judgement that awarded 170 of them a nominal sum of S$1,500 each in their class action on motoring tycoon Peter Kwee's company over the relocation of the clubhouse at Stevens Road. [GN] FREDDIE MAC: Suit Over Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations. A consolidated putative class action ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations") and two non-class action lawsuits, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA, filed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders against the company, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as the company's conservator, and Freddie Mac are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuits challenge the August 2012 amendment to each company’s senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in all three lawsuits on November 1, 2017 alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the shareholders’ rights, particularly the right to receive dividends. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs in the class action seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims except for their claims for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Federal said, "Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. GRACIA FASHION: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gracia Fashion Corp. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gracia Fashion Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-06810 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gracia Fashion -- https://www.graciafashion.com/ -- is a contemporary women's clothing brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GREENSKY INC: California Court Partially Stays Beylea Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part GreenSky's motion for stay pending appeal. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against GreenSky of Georgia, LLC and GreenSky, LLC alleging violation of California's consumer protection, lending and credit services laws in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. GreenSky thereafter removed the action to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A) ("CAFA"). Less than a week later, GreenSky filed a motion to compel arbitration which the Court denied finding that had GreenSky failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Belyea agreed to arbitrate. Ms. Belyea thereafter filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and following GreenSky's stipulation to amendment, the first amended complaint (FAC) was filed. The FAC added Heidi Barnes, Hazel Lodge, and David Ferguson as representative Plaintiffs. In response to the FAC, GreenSky moved to dismiss Ms. Barnes' claims and to compel arbitration of Ms. Belyea, Ms. Lodge, and Mr. Ferguson's claims. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss Ms. Barnes' claims and denied the motions to compel arbitration of the other Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed the now operative Second Amended Complaint which GreenSky has answered. GreenSky has appealed the Court's Arbitration Order and moves to stay proceedings here pending disposition of that appeal. That motion is fully briefed and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply to address additional authority cited in GreenSky's reply brief and correct a citation error in their reply brief, which GreenSky opposes, is also pending. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted. Following completion of the briefing on the motion to stay, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Hansen v. LMB Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 20-15272, ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 2386391 (9th Cir. June 11, 2021), vacating and remanding a district court's order denying a motion to compel arbitration based on disputes of fact regarding whether the parties had formed an agreement to arbitrate. The Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding Hansen's impact on the Arbitration Order, which is also complete. Discussion GreenSky contends that its appeal raises serious legal questions and that its faces irreparable injury if proceedings in the case are not stayed pending appeal. A. Serious Legal Questions GreenSky identifies the following serious questions as presented by its appeal: (1) the Court failed to rule on its equitable estoppel argument; (2) there is a split of opinion among district courts regarding enforcement of the same arbitration agreement here; (3) there is a split of opinion among district courts interpreting the Ninth Circuit's decision in Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2017); and (4) the appeal raises issues of first impression. The Plaintiffs maintain that none of these factors weigh in favor of a stay. First, GreenSky's argument that the Court failed to address its equitable estoppel argument does not raise a serious legal issue. Judge Corley holds she only needed to reach the equitable estoppel argument if it found a valid agreement, not where, as in the case, there were "disputed facts about whether the parties actually formed an agreement to arbitrate." Second, that there is a split of authority among district courts -- outside the Ninth Circuit -- about whether the GreenSky arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable does not raise a serious legal question given that (1) each case presented distinct facts, and (2) whether the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate is a question of state law. Third, GreenSky's argument that there is a split in authority -- caused by this Court's Arbitration Order -- regarding interpretation of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Norcia is little more than a rehash of arguments that the Court considered and rejected. The Judge says the Court is not bound by other district court decisions -- it is bound by the Ninth Circuit -- and it applied the Ninth Circuit's holding in Norcia -- that failing to opt out of an arbitration agreement is insufficient to constitute assent to the agreement -- to the facts in the case. Fourth, GreenSky's argument that the Court decided an issue of first impression with respect to its finding as to Ms. Lodge's second loan, fails to raise a serious legal question because again, as the Plaintiffs point out, the argument is not that the Court applied the wrong test, but rather an objection to the way the Court applied the test. This does not give rise to an issue of first impression. The Judge, however, finds that GreenSky's appeal raises a serious legal issue given that the Court applied the incorrect legal standard to the determination of whether the parties' formed an agreement to arbitrate. She says, the Court applied a summary judgment standard to GreenSky's motion to compel arbitration and found that GreenSky had not shown by an undisputed preponderance of evidence that the parties formed a valid agreement given the Plaintiffs' attestations of lack of knowledge and consent. While neither party addressed the applicable legal standard, where, as in the case, the party moving to compel had not shown based on undisputed facts that the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate, the Court followed other cases in this district and denied the motion to compel arbitration finding that GreenSky had not met its burden. However, under Section 4 of the FAA "if the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court will proceed summarily to the trial thereof." Accordingly, if permitted, the Court would vacate its order denying the motion to compel arbitration, order the parties to brief the motion under the proper legal standard, and proceed to trial if necessary to resolve any disputed factual issues. The Judge, thus, concludes that the existence of a serious legal question weighs in favor of stay. B. Irreparable Harm and Balance of Hardships GreenSky argues that the time and expense of litigating the case pending appeal weighs in favor of a stay. While courts routinely reject such arguments, Judge Corley finds that the argument is compelling with respect to the claims of those Plaintiffs subject to the Court's arbitration order given that the Court concedes that it applied the wrong legal standard. GreenSky has failed to show any basis for staying Ms. Barnes' claims or those of other class members who are not subject to arbitration. Accordingly, the Judge concludes that a partial stay is appropriate. Given her findings regarding the Court's arbitration order, the Judge holds that the balance of hardships tips heavily in GreenSky's favor with respect to continuing to litigate those claims. However, the balance of hardships tips heavily in the Plaintiff's favor with respect to Plaintiff Barnes and those putative class members not subject to the Court's arbitration order as these claims will be litigated in the Court regardless of the disposition of the Court's arbitration order. C. The Public Interest Finally, Judge Corley considers the public interest. Congress has expressed a strong public interest in arbitration through the FAA. The public interest favors staying the claims of those Plaintiffs and class members subject to the Court's arbitration order. In contrast, there is no public interest in favor of staying the claims of Plaintiff Barnes and the other putative class members who are not subject to the Court's arbitration order. Conclusion For the reasons she stated, Judge Corley granted in part GreenSky's motion for stay pending appeal. The stay is as to Plaintiffs Elizabeth Beylea, Hazel Lodge, David Ferguson, and any putative class members for whom there is likewise a dispute as to whether they entered into a valid arbitration agreement with GreenSky. The claims of Plaintiff Barnes and other similarly situated putative class members are not stayed. As directed at the hearing, the parties are ordered to meet and confer via videoconference regarding GreenSky's appeal. Judge Corley sets a further video status conference for Aug. 19, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., to discuss the results of the parties' meet and confer efforts. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wsp3nb9j from Leagle.com. GREYSTAR REAL: Class Cert. Response Filing Extended to Sept. 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA WALLACE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, GREYSTAR GP II, LLC, GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., GREYSTAR RS NATIONAL, INC., GREYSTAR RS SE, LLC, GREP SOUTHEAST, LLC; and INNESBROOK APARTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a SOUTHPOINT GLEN, Case No. 1:18-cv-00501-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Moving Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to file response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for class certification and granting an additional 30 days, up to and including, September 13, 2021, to file their response. The Plaintiff filed her brief in Motion for Class Certification on July 23, 2021. Moving Defendants require additional time to file an appropriate response to Plaintiff's memorandum. Greystar is an international real estate developer and manager based in the United States. As of April 2019, Greystar had $32 billion in gross assets under management. As of February 2019, Greystar manages more than 500,000 units/beds of apartment infrastructure in the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ga82UQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Counsel for the Defendants Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Greystar Management Services, L.P., Greystar RS National, Inc., Greystar RS SE, LLC, and GREP Southeast, LLC, are: Rudolf Garcia-Gallont, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-3600 Facsimile: (336) 721-3660 E-mail: Rudolf.Garcia-Gallont@wbd-us.com HANAH LIFE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanah Life, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Hanah Life, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04569 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. HANAH -- https://www.hanahlife.com/ -- sources the best, high quality, supplements and Ayurvedic superfoods like turmeric, ashwagandha, shilajit, vechur ghee, cordyceps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Faces Antitrust Class Action in N.C. Over Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------ Derek Lacey, writing for Asheville Citizen Times, reports that a class-action, anti-trust lawsuit filed in Buncombe County Aug. 10 charges HCA Healthcare with using a monopoly on the local health care industry to charge rates much higher than the state average while quality declines. In a statement announcing the lawsuit, lawyers representing six Western North Carolina residents who brought the suit say the complaint alleges Mission is now the most expensive hospital in the state for many procedures. "An out-of-state corporation has used its market power to cut quality and raise prices," says attorney Mona Lisa Wallace of Salisbury firm Wallace & Graham. "Mission Health was once the crown jewel of North Carolina's healthcare system. In filing this action, the Plaintiffs seek to have HCA live up to its promises of providing affordable health care in Western North Carolina." The 87-page lawsuit filed by a number of local community members charges the hospital system of "restraint of trade and unlawful monopolization," dating to Mission's 1995 merger with St. Joseph's Hospital. It says even before HCA purchased the hospital system, Mission forced unlawful terms on payers that increased the price of hospital services, insurance premiums, copays or deductibles across the system's entire 18-county service area. "Consolidation of hospital systems is one of the biggest drivers of rising health care costs," attorney Jamie Crooks of Fairmark Partners says in the statement. "The complaint alleges that, through a variety of anticompetitive practices, HCA has overcharged for health care." Plaintiffs are asking HCA to refund overcharges and to change its practices and restore a fair market for healthcare, he says. According to the lawsuit, "The North Carolina Constitution states: 'Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state and shall not be allowed.' However, from 1995 until 2019, Mission operated its hospital system as a monopoly. In January 2019, HCA acquired Mission and to this day continues to operate it as a for-profit monopoly." The Mission-St. Joseph's merger in 1995 left Buncombe and Madison Counties with only one choice for inpatient general acute care, it says, but a Certificate of Public Advantage that protected the system from anti-trust actions was repealed in 2016 "after years of lobbying by Mission executives." Nancy Lindell, Mission Health/HCA Healthcare NC Division spokesperson, said once the company has been served with the lawsuit, it will respond appropriately through the legal process. "We are committed to caring for Western North Carolina as demonstrated through more than $330 million in charity care and uninsured discounts we provided in 2020, expansion of hospital services including the opening of the North Tower, a new Pediatric ER, and securing land for a new 120-bed behavioral health hospital," she said. "Further, we have invested in our colleagues with onboarding nearly 1,200 new members this year and providing more than $3 million in student loan and tuition reimbursement in 2020." "Mission Health is committed to the health and well-being of every person who comes to us for care and we are proud of our dedicated hospital teams that are facing the many challenges of this pandemic and the exceptional care they have provided to our patients," Lindell said. Mission Hospital departures: Concerns mount as doctors leave HCA Healthcare Claire Siegel, an RN in the medical surgical unit at Mission and on the union negotiating team, speaks to fellow nurses and community members who gathered to picket in front of Mission Hospital on Tuesday, June 15, 2021. Lawsuit: higher prices for worse care Among the plaintiffs is Chef Katie Button, of Katie Button Restaurants and Curate. The suit says that "crushing costs of regular health insurance in the Asheville area, due to HCA/Mission," led her to switch her business to a self-funded format. The complaint says Button has "paid excessive amounts as a proximate result of Defendants charging supra-competitive prices for healthcare, similar to the other Plaintiffs," and that the administrator of her company's self-funded plan, Roundstone, has advised that the reason the costs are so high is due to HCA/Mission. Other named plaintiffs speak of paying "artificially high premiums, co-payments, deductibles, co-insurance payments, and/or out-of-pocket payments not covered by the health plans." One of those is Will Overfelt, of Asheville, an administrator on the Mission Mountain Maladies Facebook page who says in the complaint that the quality of care during his father's weeklong stay in the hospital in February 2020 "was clearly worse [than] it had been in years past." A chart included with an anti-trust lawsuit filed in Buncombe County Aug. 10 compares prices of C-section births at Mission Hospital compared to the rest of North Carolina. "Mr. Overfelt noted the rooms were dirty. It was hard to get information. He had trouble getting his father pain medications timely," the complaint says. It says Overfelt noticed a napkin on the floor early on in his father's hospital room and left it where it was to see if it was really being cleaned. A week later when his father was discharged, the napkin was still there. When it comes to prices for care, the lawsuit alleges that HCA routinely charges more than state averages. According to a large dataset, it says, "HCA currently charges more than two times the State average for a C-section without complications," a price disparity that only exists "because of the system's unbridled monopoly power and its status as a 'must have' system in Western North Carolina." The complaint says HCA holds an approximate 90% market share for inpatient general acute care in Buncombe and Madison counties, giving it "free rein to dictate the prices it charges ... while at the same time undermining quality to cut costs." And across the region, it charges that HCA holds a monopoly market share (70% or more) for inpatient services only in seven counties: Yancey (90.9%), Madison (90%), Buncombe (86.6%), Mitchell (85.4%), Transylvania (78.7%) McDowell (76.4%) and Macon (74.7%). The suit says insurance premiums in counties where Mission operates are substantially higher than the state average and higher than in areas with higher costs of living. It says they're about 50% higher than in Winston-Salem, 55% higher than in Durham, Raleigh or Charlotte, and about 60% higher than in Greensboro. "Crossing the county line from Rutherford County (in Mission's self-defined service area) to Cleveland County (outside of Mission's service area), an individual would see premiums drop immediately by 29%," the complaint says. A map compares insurance premiums in Mission Health/HCA Healthcare's Western North Carolina region (outlined in black) compared with other nearby rates. Lawmakers, Attorney General weigh in In a conference call with media Aug. 10, State Rep. Brian Turner and State Sen. Julie Mayfield said they support the lawsuit and applaud the plaintiffs for raising important issues. "People are glad someone is finally paying attention, and a group of folks had the courage to step up and take on this issue," Turner said, adding that Mission is the region's largest private employer, impacting many residents' lives and livelihoods. "This lawsuit is not the be-all, end-all, fix-all of the problem," Mayfield said. "But we do hope it is a strong step in the right direction in addressing many issues and concerns we have heard." Both Mayfield and Turner said that in the more than two years since for-profit HCA purchased the hospital system, they've not heard from a single patient, physician or staffer who's had a positive word to say about the changes. And while she was generally aware of concerns over rising costs of insurance, Mayfield said she didn't know until reading the complaint exactly why that is, including Mission and HCA using "its monopolistic power in negotiations with insurance companies" that increased costs for everyone. They also used that monopolistic power, she said, in negotiations with physician practices who ended up parting ways with the hospital system, resulting in the area losing dozens of physicians. "The biggest shock to me is the difference in premiums," Turner said, noting folks in Western North Carolina paying premiums $100 higher than other places. "That goes to the bottom line of a family's budget," he said. Nashville-based HCA Healthcare finalized its deal to buy the six-hospital, 12,000-employee Mission Health system for $1.5 billion in early 2019 after about a year of negotiations. The deal required approval from North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, who said in January 2019 that he wouldn't challenge the deal after changes including the addition of an independent monitor to review the company's compliance with its 15 commitments to the community. Those commitments include maintaining certain services, making certain investments in facilities, investing in the community and more and at the time, Stein said the state Justice Department made major efforts to review the deal's terms to see if the purchase price was fair, whether it adequately protected services, and whether the board was properly constituted. "I do think there is a gap, a regulatory gap, and what the fix is for that, we can start having those conversations," Mayfield said. She mentioned another Certificate of Public Advantage or a re-examining of the powers of the attorney general or other branch of government to regulate monopolies. Another regulatory gap is in the attorney general's authority to regulate hospital conversions, Mayfield said, noting that one thing she's heard over and over is people being frustrated with the limited ability of the AG and independent monitor to deal with problems that arose following the merger. Since the sale, that independent monitor, Gibbins Advisors, has heard plenty from a concerned public and departing staffers about low staffing and overworking doctors and nurses. The lawsuit says that HCA's monopolistic practices have "caused reduced quality of service," and that after the sale, "there have been numerous news reports, public protests, over 100 citizen complaints sent to the Attorney General, and statements from area politicians protesting declining quality at the system." Mission nurses have also unionized since the sale, ratifying their contract in July after protests and negotiations by nurses, who made staffing a top issue, along with nurse-to-patient ratios and more. Mayfield said she'd be interested in legislation to strengthen the Attorney General's ability to put in place more parameters around quality, quantity, pricing, negotiation, and in all the places where problems have cropped up after the sale. "I think probably the agreement could have been much more specific and broader in services that could not be reduced or cut," she said. Turner said the AG's role is fairly prescribed, but powers may be expanded or the state may be able to use another department or agency to bring more authority. "Our office is reviewing the lawsuit and will continue to watch this closely," said Laura Brewer, communications director with Stein's office. "Attorney General Stein strongly believes in fair and transparent health care pricing for North Carolinians." She cited his work in protecting the Affordable Care Act and a recent letter to hospital administrators asking them to comply with new federal pricing transparency regulations and send his office a list of their prices. The statute that specifies the AG's authority to review the transaction between Mission and HCA does not include general oversight over pricing or care, Brewer said. "As a result, our Office's review of that transaction was necessarily limited to items such as ensuring that the full value of Mission's assets would be used for public purposes," she said. That included requiring the Dogwood Health Trust be independent and representative and that health care services continue to be provided, Brewer said. "I would like to see that this becomes a launching point for addressing a lot of the broad issues that we've seen," Mayfield said. From her perspective, she said, the base problem is that local health care decisions are being made by a profit-driven company and out-of-state executives and shareholders. When Turner came down with COVID-19 earlier this year, he said he had "real questions about whether or not I wanted to go to Mission if I had to." A successful outcome, he said, would be the people of Western North Carolina having confidence that if they go to Mission, it's not going to bankrupt them. Bottom line, what Mayfield said she wants to see is people in the region having access to excellent health care at more affordable prices with a quality work environment for those affiliated in the system, "something we don't have right now." [GN] HEATHER MUELLER: Class Suit Filed in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heather Mueller. The case is styled as K.O., by and through his parent and guardian J.O. on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Heather Mueller, in her capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education, State of Minnesota, Case No. 0:21-cv-01837-PJS-ECW (D. Minn., Aug. 12, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Education for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Heather Mueller -- https://education.mn.gov/ -- has been named the Deputy Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Stewart, Esq. MID-MINNESOTA LEGAL AID 111 N. 5th Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: (612) 746-3783 Fax: (612) 746-3783 Email: djstewart@mylegalaid.org HOLY SEE: Hurn Files Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Holy See. The case is styled as Stephen Hurn, Tom Sparks, James Hamilton, Michael E. Peters, Mary Winne also known as: Mary Ruggeri, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Holy See also known as: The Apostolic See, Case No. 1:21-cv-00913-TJM-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. The Holy See, also called the See of Rome or Apostolic See -- http://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html-- is the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope, which includes the apostolic episcopal see of the Diocese of Rome with universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the worldwide Catholic Church, as well as a sovereign entity of international law, governing the Vatican City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. HERMAN LAW FIRM PA 1800 N Military Trail, Suite 160 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (305) 931-2200 Email: smermelstein@hermanlaw.com HONDA AIRCRAFT: DM Volbleu Files Suit in E.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honda Aircraft Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as DM Volbleu, LLC, Silverleaf V, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. Honda Aircraft Company, Inc., Honda Aircraft Company, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00637-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Honda Aircraft Company -- https://www.hondajet.com/ -- is an aircraft manufacturer headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, responsible for the production of the HondaJet family of aircraft.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Chaiken, Esq. Kenneth Bruce Chaiken, Esq. CHAIKEN & CHAIKEN, PC - Plano 5717 Legacy Dr, Suite 250 Plano, TX 75024 Phone: (214) 265-0250 Fax: (214) 265-1537 Email: rchaiken@chaikenlaw.com kchaiken@chaikenlaw.com HONEY-CAN-DO: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honey-Can-Do International, LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Honey-Can-Do International, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06811-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Honey-Can-Do International -- https://honeycando.com/ -- is a consumer goods company that offers storage and organization products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal HOST HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Blount Has Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California the preliminary approves the Class Settlement Agreement in the case, SARAH BLOUNT, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOST HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21cv310-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Blount brings the putative wage and hour class action against the Defendant. She moves for preliminary approval of a class settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Defendant does not oppose the Plaintiff's motion. Upon due consideration, Judge Anello grants the Plaintiff's motion. He preliminarily approves and incorporates the Settlement Agreement, and conditionally certifies the Settlement Class, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement's terms and conditions as follows: "All individuals who worked for Host Healthcare in California as a non-exempt or hourly employee at any time during the Class Period, including corporate employees and travel nurses." The "Class Period" will be from Nov. 16, 2016 to the date of the Order. The Judge approves the Notice of Class Action Settlement is approved. He appoints, for settlement purposes only, (i) Ferraro Vega Employment Lawyers, Inc. as the Class Counsel; (ii) Sarah Blount as the Representative Plaintiff; and (iii) Simpluris, Inc. as the third-party Settlement Administrator. No more than 15 calendar days after the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the Defendant will forward to the Settlement Administrator, information in electronic format, regarding all the Class Members' names, last known residence addresses, Social Security numbers, hire and termination dates, and total workweeks worked during the Class Period. No more than 21 calendar days after receipt of the Class Member Data, the Settlement Administrator will mail the Class Notice to each Class Member, by first class United States mail, postage pre-paid. The Settlement Administrator will take those measures specified, and on the conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, for updating an address after the first mailing of the Class Notice. All mailings will be made to the present and/or last known mailing address of the Class Members based on the Defendant's records, and as may be updated and located by the Settlement Administrator and as may be provided to the Settlement Administrator by Class Counsel or Defendant's counsel. Requests for exclusion from the Settlement must be mailed to the Settlement Administrator in the manner set forth in the Class Notice, postmarked no later than 45 days following the mailing of the Class Notice by the Settlement Administrator. If the 45th day falls on a Sunday or Holiday, the Response Deadline will end on the next business day that is not a Sunday or Holiday. Written letters of objection to the Settlement may be mailed to the Settlement Administrator in the manner set forth in the Class Notice, postmarked no later than 45 days following the mailing of the Class Notice by the Settlement Administrator. If the 45th day falls on a Sunday or Holiday, the Response Deadline will end on the next business day that is not a Sunday or Holiday. Any written letter of objection should be signed by the Class Member and/or his or her representative; include the objecting Class Member's name, address, telephone number, and the case name and number as shown in the Class Notice; the basis for each objection; a list of any witnesses to be called at the final approval hearing; and whether the Class Member and/or his or her representative intends to appear at the final approval hearing. No more than 14 calendar days after the Response Deadline, the Settlement Administrator will serve on all Parties a declaration of due diligence setting forth its compliance with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, all papers in support of the Motion for Order Granting Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement will be filed at least 28 calendar days before the Final Fairness/Final Approval hearing. The Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on Oct. 27, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. The Court expressly reserves the right to adjourn or to continue the Final Approval Hearing from time-to-time without further notice to the Class Members, except that notice of a continuance will be provided to all the Class Members who submit written objections. In the event the Settlement does not become final for any reason, the Preliminary Approval Order will be of no further force or effect and the fact that the Parties were willing to stipulate to class certification as part of the Settlement will have no bearing on, and will not be admissible in connection with, the issue of whether a class should be certified in a non-settlement context. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/xfcapdyj from Leagle.com. HOUSEHOLD STAFFING.COM: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Household Staffing.com, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Household Staffing.com, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06805-JMF (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Household Staffing -- https://householdstaffing.com/ -- is a domestic staffing agency serving high-caliber homes nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, is still pending. On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities. On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court. On May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel. On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 8, 2017 and May 7, 2019. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had misstated the basis for its calculation of the total addressable market; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the strong sales acumen of its sales force, rather than to deceptive sales practices; (iii) the growth in Inogen's domestic business-to-business sales to home medical equipment providers was inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales; and (iv) Inogen's decision to focus on sales over rentals of portable oxygen concentrators harmed its ability to serve the Medicare market, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the court deems proper. On January 2, 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend. On January 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint generally alleging substantially similar claims as those in the previous complaint. On January 23, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 2, 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and instructed defendants to file another motion to dismiss if the parties are unable to resolve the issues relating to the second amended complaint. The Company filed its motion to dismiss on October 28, 2020; that motion is currently pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Inogen, Inc., a medical technology company, primarily develops, manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators for patients, physicians and other clinicians, and third-party payors in the United States and internationally. Inogen, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Goleta, California. INVESTINET LLC: Disla Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against InvestiNet, LLC, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eliseo Disla, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. InvestiNet, LLC, Inc., LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-15276-JMV-ESK (D.N.J., Aug. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. InvestiNet -- https://www.investinet.com/ -- is a full service account receivables management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com JIGGY PUZZLES: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jiggy Puzzles LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jiggy Puzzles LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06812 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JIGGY Puzzles -- https://jiggypuzzles.com/ -- focusing on puzzles that could also be used as works of art to decorate walls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Sault City Mulls Joining Opioid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- CTV News reports that a Sault Ste. Marie city councillor is urging his fellow councillors, to join a class-action lawsuit aimed at the manufacturers and distributors of opioids. The $10-billion lawsuit was launched by the City of Grande Prairie, Alta., and has also garnered the support of Brantford in southern Ontario. It seeks to recoup municipal costs associated with the opioid crisis and lists more than 40 companies, such as Johnson and Johnson and Shoppers Drug Mart. "By all accounts, (the opioid crisis) was initiated by the pharmaceutical companies," said city councillor Corey Gardi. "Some of their partners manufactured and distributed some of these drugs irresponsibly, quite frankly." Gardi said the number of opioid-related deaths is rising in Sault Ste. Marie and that the companies that helped to begin the crisis, should also aid in stopping it. However, he said it's up to the city's legal team to decide what options would be best for the city to take. "At any rate, I think we need to explicitly support this legal effort," Gardi said Sault Ste. Marie City Council is hoping to revisit the question of joining the lawsuit in September. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: E.D. California Dismisses Bouskos Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered the Clerk of the Court to close the case, MICHAEL BOUSKOS, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01431-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.). On Oct. 10, 2019, the Defendant removed the action, which was brought by the Plaintiff on an individual basis and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On Dec. 21, 2020, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims, found the Plaintiff's claims were covered pursuant to the arbitration agreement, and that because the class action waiver was enforceable, the Plaintiff was required to pursue his claims on an individual basis in arbitration. The Court stayed and administratively closed this action. On July 29, 2021, a stipulation was filed dismissing the action without prejudice and with each party to bear its own costs and fees. The stipulation provides that the Plaintiff does not intend to pursue arbitration of his individual claims at this time. In light of the stipulation of the parties, the action has been terminated, and has been dismissed without prejudice and without an award of costs or attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the file in the case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 41(a). A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5vb9m9b9 from Leagle.com. LA MER EYE: Zimmerman Law Files Class Action Over Under Eye Cream ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to a class action filed by Zimmerman Law Offices PC, in February 2020, Estee Lauder began selling a new reformulated version of the La Mer Eye Concentrate that is advertised and promoted as an improved under-eye cream with triple the concentrated "Miracle Broth" that can reduce the look of dark circles for a brighter, healthier look. However, unlike the Eye Concentrate's previous formula, the lawsuit alleges that the new reformulated Eye Concentrate causes redness, irritation, burning, itching, swollen eyes, and chemical burns, and the complaint quotes dozens of consumer complaints about the reformulated Eye Concentrate causing these injuries after the first use. The lawsuit seeks damages arising out of consumers' purchase and use of the reformulated Eye Concentrate, including refunds of the purchase price and compensation for injuries. "For years, women used the Eye Concentrate without any problems. However, after La Mer changed the formula, these same women are now suffering burning, irritation and swelling around their eyes from the reformulated Eye Concentrate," said Thomas Zimmerman of Zimmerman Law Offices PC, who represents the plaintiff in this matter. Zimmerman continued: "Estee Lauder must fix the formula of the La Mer Eye Concentrate, and take responsibility and pay for the damages and injuries it caused. It is both the ethical and legally-mandated resolution to this tragedy." The case is Amy Joseph v. The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A copy of the complaint is available upon request, as are interviews with the attorneys in this matter. The lead plaintiff may also be available to speak with the media on a limited basis. If you have purchased La Mer Eye Concentrate under eye cream, please contact us for more information. CONTACT: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. tom@attorneyzim.com Zimmerman Law Offices PC 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 440-0020 telephone (312) 286-6598 cell www.attorneyzim.com [GN] LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Block & Leviton Named Lead Counsel in Morton Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANTHONY G. MORTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. LEIDOS HOLDINGS INC., ROGER A. KRONE, and JAMES C. REAGAN, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01911-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiff Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund's motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for designation of Block & Leviton LLP as lead counsel. On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff Morton filed against the Defendants a putative class action on behalf of acquirers of Leidos securities. Subsequently, Plaintiffs Fred Martens and Lucretia Martens moved to serve as Lead Plaintiffs and to appoint counsel. Then, on May 3, 2021, Operating Engineers Construction Industry filed a Motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for designation of Block & Leviton LLP as lead counsel. Thereafter, Plaintiffs Fred and Lucretia Martens noticed their non-opposition to Operating Engineers' lead plaintiff motion, which is therefore now unopposed. While no other action asserting the same claims is currently pending, and because no other party now moves for appointment as Lead Plaintiff, the Court is nonetheless required to determine whether Operating Engineers is an appropriate plaintiff to represent the other putative class members. In making its determination, the Court is guided by the statutory rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person that (1) has either filed the complaint or made a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The presumption may be rebutted if the Court finds evidence that the presumptive plaintiff "will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" or is subject to "unique defenses" that render him or her incapable of adequately representing the class. A plaintiff appointed as the Lead Plaintiff may choose counsel to represent the class, subject to Court approval. Based on a review of the relevant criteria and materials submitted in the case, Judge Vyskocil finds that Operating Engineers is the most adequate plaintiff. Additionally, she approves Operating Engineer's choice of Block & Leviton LLP as Lead Counsel. First, Operating Engineers' adequacy to represent the class and pursue its claims is self-evident, given that it is the only Plaintiff who now seeks to serve as lead plaintiff. Second, Operating Engineers' alleged loss -- and therefore its financial interest in the action -- is the largest among any interested class representatives. Finally, no one has submitted any evidence or argument to rebut Operating Engineers' status as the presumptive most adequate plaintiff. After reviewing Operating Engineers' application and the other filings in the case, the Judge finds that Operating Engineers has made a sufficient preliminary showing that it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Accordingly, she grants Operating Engineers' application to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Additionally, the Judge approves Operating Engineers' choice of Block & Leviton LLP to be Lead Counsel. As exhibited in Operating Engineers' submissions, Block & Leviton LLP has experience in large securities class actions, and has also been appointed as representation of plaintiffs in a number of other cases, including In re BP Securities Litigation, (S.D. Tex.), In re Google Inc. Class C Shareholder Litig. (Del. Ch. Ct.), and In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales and Products Liability Litigation (N.D. Cal.). For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vyskocil granted Operating Engineers' motion. As lead counsel, Block & Leviton LLP will have the following responsibilities and duties, to be carried out either personally or through counsel whom the firm designates: to coordinate the preparation and filings of all pleadings; to coordinate the briefing and argument of any and all motions; to coordinate the conduct of any and all discovery proceedings; to coordinate the examination of any and all witnesses in depositions; to coordinate the selection of counsel to act as spokesperson(s) at all pretrial conferences; to call meetings of the Plaintiffs' counsel as they deem necessary and appropriate from time to time; to coordinate all settlement negotiations with counsel for the Defendants; to coordinate and direct pretrial discovery proceedings, preparation for trial, and trial of the matter and delegate work responsibilities to selected counsel as maybe required; and to supervise all other matters concerning the prosecution or resolution of the claims asserted in the action. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vuvhv5en from Leagle.com. LENDINGTREE LLC: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against LendingTree LLC, et al. The case is styled as Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LendingTree LLC, LendingTree (Parent) Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-01397-DMF (D. Ariz., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LendingTree, LLC -- https://www.lendingtree.com/ -- provides online tools to aid consumers in their financial decisions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 900-1288 Email: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com LOANCARE LLC: Six Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kristie Six, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Loancare, LLC, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. CC-41-02021-C-174 was removed from the Raleigh County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Aug. 12, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00451 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. LoanCare -- https://www.myloancare.com/ -- is a top national subservicer, provides loan servicing solutions that assist the lending industry achieve optimal asset performance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Buckner, Esq. KATZ KANTOR STONESTREET & BUCKNER 207 South Walker Street Princeton, WV 24740 Phone: (304) 431-4050 Fax: (304) 431-4060 Email: ebuckner@kksblaw.com - and - Jason E. Causey BORDAS & BORDAS 1358 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003 Phone: (304) 242-8410 Fax: (304) 242-3936 Email: jcausey@bordaslaw.com - and - Jed Robert Nolan NOLAN CONSUMER LAW P. O. Box 654 Athens, WV 24712 Phone: (304) 207-0066 Email: jed@protectwvconsumers.com The Defendants are represented by: Angela L. Beblo, Esq. Debra Lee Allen, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE P. O. Box 273 Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Phone: (304) 340-3800 Fax: (304) 340-3801 Email: abeblo@spilmanlaw.com dallen@spilmanlaw.com LOUISIANA: LDH Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Youth Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------- South Poverty Law Center disclosed that decades of research and experience have led to a consensus among mental health practitioners throughout the nation that intensive home- and community-based mental health services are much more effective and less expensive than institutionalizing children and youth who have ongoing mental health needs or who experience a psychiatric crisis. Children and youth with mental illnesses or conditions who are left untreated or undertreated have an increased risk of chronic physical conditions and a shorter life expectancy than those who do not have a mental health condition. Children with untreated or undertreated mental health conditions are also at risk of struggling with self-esteem issues, having strained family and peer relationships, languishing in school, and becoming involved with the juvenile justice system. Accordingly, for Louisiana's children and youth with mental health conditions, access to mental health services is necessary for them to lead functioning and productive lives. The SPLC led a statewide, multi-year investigation into the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) to determine if it is providing or ensuring the provision of necessary mental health services to Medicaid-eligible youth. The investigation revealed that the state has failed to provide a coordinated behavioral health system of intensive home- and community-based services to 47,500 Louisiana Medicaid-eligible children throughout the state who have been diagnosed with a mental illness or conditions, even though it is required by federal law. As a result, the SPLC and its partners -- the National Health Law Program (NHeLP), the National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ), Advocacy Center, and O'Melveny & Myers LLP -- filed a federal class action lawsuit against the state. The plaintiffs are six Louisiana-Medicaid child beneficiaries who live in different parishes throughout the state. They require intensive home- and community-based mental health services but are not receiving them, resulting in dire consequences for them and their families. The lawsuit states that Louisiana's repeated failure to meet its obligation to provide Medicaid-mandated intensive home- and community-based mental health services to the plaintiffs and the tens of thousands of similarly situated children and youth represented by the plaintiffs, has led the children to deteriorate in their homes and communities, to unnecessarily become at risk of cycling in and out of traumatic and restrictive psychiatric facilities, and sometimes to become inappropriately and tragically involved in the juvenile justice system. In May 2021, the court granted class certification, meaning that this case will proceed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of "all Medicaid-eligible youth under the age of 21 in the State of Louisiana (1) who have been diagnosed with a mental health or behavioral disorder, not attributable to an intellectual or developmental disability, and (2) for whom a licensed practitioner of the healing arts has recommended intensive home- and community- based services to correct or ameliorate their disorders." If you believe your child could be a class member or are unsure and would like to speak with an attorney, or if you'd like to find out more information about this lawsuit, please contact us. A.A., ET AL., V. PHILLIPS, ET AL. Date Filed: November 07, 2019 Court where filed: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Plaintiffs: Six Louisiana Medicaid-eligible children under the age of 21 who have been diagnosed with a mental illness or condition, and who live in different parishes throughout Louisiana Defendant: sDr. Courtney N. Phillips, in her official capacity as secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH), and LDH Co-Counsel National Health Law Program (NHeLP), National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ), Disability Rights Louisiana, and O'Melveny & Myers LLP [GN] MALLINCKRODT PLC: Appeal on Stay of Strougo Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2021, that the appeal made in the putative class action suit entitled, Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., regarding the Bankruptcy Court action in staying the suit, has been denied. In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its Chief Financial Officer Bryan M. Reasons, its former Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former CFO Matthew K. Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of its Acthar Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. A lead plaintiff was designated by the court on June 25, 2020, and on July 30, 2020, the court approved the transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 10, 2020, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff alleging an expended putative class period of May 3, 2016 through March 18, 2020 against the Company and Mark C. Trudeau, Bryan M. Reasons, George A. Kegler and Matthew K. Harbaugh, as well as newly named defendants Kathleen A. Schaefer, Angus C. Russell, Melvin D. Booth, JoAnn A. Reed, Paul R. Carter, and Mark J. Casey. The amended complaint claims that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the CMS had informed the Company that it was using the wrong base date AMP for calculating the Medicaid rebate the Company owed CMS for Acthar Gel each quarter since 2014; (ii) the Company's reported net income was improperly inflated in violation of GAAP; (iii) the Company's contingent liabilities associated with the rebates owed to CMS for Acthar Gel were misrepresented; (iv) the Company's fiscal year 2019 guidance for Acthar Gel net sales was false; (v) the Company failed to disclose material information regarding the cases captioned Landolt v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. 1:18-cv-11931-PBS (D. Mass.) (Landolt) and U.S. ex rel. Strunck v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. 2:12-cv-0175-BMS (E.D. Pa.) (Strunck), or the related investigation by the DOJ and (vi) the Company failed to disclose that the clinical trials for Acthar Gel were purportedly initiated in order to make it appear that alternative revenue opportunities for Acthar Gel existed and thus offset the expected 10% decline in net sales as a result of the rebates the Company now had to pay. On October 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. As to the Company, this litigation is subject to the automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and on December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined proceedings against the Strougo Defendants. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Bankruptcy Court action to the U.S. District Court in Delaware through a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by that court on January 27, 2021. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2021, that the class action suit related to Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs), is still stayed. In July 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., against the Company, its CEO, its former CFO, its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and former directors of the Company (collectively, the "Solomon Defendants"). On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and refiled virtually the same complaint in the D.C. District Court. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November 25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, through the ESPPs. In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same period. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. class action lawsuit. Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March 1, 2018. Co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2018 having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On July 6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of the Shenk class action lawsuit. The defendants intends to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. On October 13, 2020, the trial court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and on December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined the proceedings against the individual named defendants. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shaver Putative Class Suit Further Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2021, that the putative class action suit entitled, Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No. VLC-S-S-205793, has been further stayed. On June 1, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Mallinckrodt plc, Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia and the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, captioned Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., Court File No. VLC-S-S-205793. The action purports to be brought on behalf of any persons: (1) prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia after March 1, 2014; (2) covered by Pharmacare Plan C within British Columbia who were prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment after February 1, 2014; (3) who transitioned from compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia after March 1, 2014; (4) covered by Pharmacare Plan C within British Columbia who were transitioned from compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment after February 1, 2014; or (5) falling within such other class definition as the British Columbia Court may approve. The suit generally alleges that the Province's decision to grant Methadose coverage under Pharmacare Plan C and remove compounded methadone from coverage under Pharmacare Plan C had adversely affected those being treated for opioid use disorder due to Methadose allegedly being a significantly less effective treatment than generic compounded methadone. The suit asserts that the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt defendants knew (or ought to have known) about, failed to warn patients about and made false representations concerning, the efficacy of Methadose and the risks of switching from compounded methadone to Methadose. The suit seeks general, special, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and interest and injunctive relief against the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt defendants. Pursuant to two orders granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) ("Canadian Court") on October 15, 2020, the Chapter 11 proceedings commenced by Mallinckrodt plc and Mallinckrodt Canada ULC pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were recognized and given effect in Canada. Among other things, the Canadian Court has stayed all proceedings against the Mallinckrodt defendants, including the British Columbia class action proceedings. The Canadian Court granted a further order on February 25, 2021, staying the British Columbia class action proceedings against all defendants. Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit." Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in LeJeune Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, LeJeune v. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics and Security Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC. On March 20, 2019, EJ LeJeune, a former employee of ESPADA Logistics and Security Group, LLC and ESPADA Caribbean LLC filed a putative collective and class action complaint in LeJeune v. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics and Security Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. On August 5, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint, dismissing Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. as a defendant, adding Cobra Acquisitions LLC as a defendant, and adding ESPADA Caribbean LLC and two officers of ESPADA—James Jorrie and Jennifer Gay Jorrie—as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants jointly employed the plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and failed to pay them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico law. The complaint also alleges the following violations of Puerto Rico law: illegal deductions from workers' wages, failure to timely pay all wages owed, failure to pay a required severance when terminating workers without just cause, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide required meal periods, and failure to pay a statutorily required bonus to eligible workers. Mr. LeJeune seeks to represent a class of workers allegedly employed by one or more defendants and paid a flat amount for each day worked regardless of how many hours were worked. The complaint seeks back wages, including overtime wages owed, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages owed, attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On June 16, 2020, Cobra answered Mr. LeJeune's amended complaint, denying that it employed Mr. LeJeune and the putative class members and denying that they are entitled to relief from Cobra. All other defendants have also answered the amended complaint. The parties stipulated to conditional certification of a collective action, and on August 14, 2020, the Court ordered that notice be sent to all individuals engaged by ESPADA to provide services to Cobra in Puerto Rico between January 21, 2017 and the present who were paid a day-rate. Notice was sent to putative class members on September 15, 2020, and the opt-in period closed on November 14, 2020. The parties are in discovery. Mammoth said, "The Company believes these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. However, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Settlement in Securities Court Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted preliminary approval of settlement in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation. In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma. On September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits under the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation. On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and Mark Layton. Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs brought a consolidated putative federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. common stock between October 19, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive. On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On March 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint for violation of federal securities laws which contains allegations substantially similar to those contained in the plaintiff's first amended complaint. On March 30, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 26, 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied the motion to dismiss in part. In May 2021, a settlement was reached and a preliminary approval from the Court was received. This matter was covered under the Company's directors' and officers' insurance policy. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Putative Class Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action in Puerto Rico initiated by Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. On June 19, 2018, Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico styled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC, et al. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused power outages in Puerto Rico while performing restoration work on Puerto Rico's electrical network following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, thereby interrupting commercial activities and causing economic loss. The Company believes these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. Mammoth said, "However, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Enters Consumer Track Briefing Sched Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:19-md-02879 (Md. Dist. Ct.), the Hon. Judge Paul W. Grimm enters an order regarding consumer track briefing schedule. In the briefing schedule for class certification and expert reports in the Consumer Track, the deadline for the Defendants to oppose class certification and for the Defendants to serve reports for class certification experts is September 6, 2021. The Court will be closed on that day for the Labor Day holiday. Therefore, these deadlines will be amended to September 7, 2021. All other deadlines in the schedule remain the same, says Judge Grimm. Marriott International is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. It is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.[CC] MASTERWORKS.IO: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Masterworks.io, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Masterworks.io, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06801 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Masterworks --https://www.masterworks.io/ -- is the first company to allow investors to buy and trade shares in multi-million dollar masterpieces created by world-renowned artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Certifies Class in OLEPTF Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC, certified a class consisting of investors who purchased or acquired Maxar stock between May 9, 2018 and October 30, 2018, inclusive. On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, naming Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other things, that the Company's public disclosures were deficient in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary damages. On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of management in connection with the Company's public disclosures between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or misleading during the class period. On September 11, 2020, the court granted in part, and denied in part, defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2021, the court in the Colorado Action certified a class consisting of investors who purchased or acquired Maxar stock between May 9, 2018 and October 30, 2018, inclusive. Also, in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and seeking monetary damages. On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's auditor, KPMG LLP. On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 lawsuit was discontinued.  The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading during the class period and claims damages of $700 million.  On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action as a class proceeding, which motion is currently pending. The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: McCurdy Putative Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al., No. I9CV35070. On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al., No. I9CV35070 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2, 2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of its October 5, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe, Inc. On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the same causes of action against the same set of defendants as set forth in his original complaint.  The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual allegations as the Colorado Action. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or misleading when made. On January 24, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part, defendants' motion to dismiss. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado. METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Bid to Compel Discovery in Heras Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SANDRA HERAS, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN LEARNING INSTITUTE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-2694(DG) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to compel the Defendants to produce class-wide discovery regarding other recruiters. Plaintiff Heras brings the wage-and-hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated "recruiters" employed by Defendants Metropolitan Learning Institute and its president, Boris Davidoff. By letter-motion dated June 17, 2021, the Plaintiff seeks an order directing the Defendants, over their objection to produce class-wide discovery regarding other recruiters, including documents listing all recruiters and their workweeks. The Plaintiff argues that "class-wide discovery has routinely been ordered in the Second Circuit with respect to claims under both the FLSA and the NYLL." The Defendants disagree, citing and quoting from opinions issued out of this District that have denied similar precertification discovery requests. In arguing that courts in this Circuit "routinely" order the class-wide discovery she seeks and thereby avoid "splitting class certification discovery and class merits discovery," the Plaintiff oversimplifies the state of the law and overlooks recent caselaw in the District. As Judge Brian Cogan explained in Beaton v. Verizon New York, Inc., 20-CV-672 (BMC), 2020 WL 6449235, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2020) -- a decision that postdated the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), on which the Plaintiff heavily relies. Judge Mann finds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the discovery relevant to her contemplated Rule 23 motion could not be obtained through alternative means, such as interrogatories concerning the Defendants' policies and practices regarding recruiters and/or Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. She thus has not established her entitlement to class-wide documents, and the Judge, exercising her "broad discretion to determine the extent of discovery concerning Rule 23 requirements," denies the Plaintiff's motion to compel the production of class-wide documents relating to and identifying other recruiters. That said, Judge Mann notes that some of the document demands listed in the Plaintiff's letter-motion seek documents relating to policies and practices, rather than to specific recruiters; by way of example only, Document Demand No. 32 requests manuals and similar documents "concerning the Defendants' compensation policies and practices. Unfortunately, neither side has addressed each of the listed Document Demands, but instead has argued either for or against class-wide discovery, without analyzing any specific demand. As the parties have not undertaken a demand-by-demand analysis, the Judge declines to do so, but instead directs the parties to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve any remaining discovery disputes, consistent with the rationale of the Opinion. For the reasons set forth, Judge Mann denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to compel. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/su75vuwb from Leagle.com. MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microchip Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT. Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its officers were named in two putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-ROS and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT. On November 13, 2018, the Maknissian complaint was voluntarily dismissed. On December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff in the Jackson matter. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2019. The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018 and August 9, 2018. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal securities laws and alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects during the putative class period. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 1, 2019, which motion was granted in part and denied in part on March 11, 2020. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which was granted by the Court. Discovery is ongoing. Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler, Arizona. MONARCH RECOVERY: Mullins FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nickie Mullins, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Case No. 12-cvs-876 was removed from the Caldwell County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on Aug. 12, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00120-KDB-DSC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. -- https://monarchrm.com/ -- is a premier accounts receivable management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: pwallace@milberg.com sharris@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: John Pelczar Wright, Esq. CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP 2907 Providence Road Charlotte, NC 28211 Phone: (704) 940-3433 Email: jwright@cshlaw.com NASDAQ INC: Still Defends City of Providence Case ------------------------------------------------- Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.). The company was named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against the company under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief of an unspecified amount. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. The company then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. On August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (although opting not to appeal the dismissal with respect to Barclays PLC or the dismissal of claims under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act). On December 19, 2017, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating the district court's judgment of dismissal and remanding to the district court for further proceedings. On May 18, 2018, the exchanges filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, raising issues not addressed in the proceedings to date. On May 28, 2019, the district court denied the exchanges' renewed motion to dismiss, leading the parties to commence the discovery process. Discovery, focused on issues of whether the case can be certified as a class action and whether the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by federal securities regulation, ended on April 26, 2021, and potentially dispositive motions regarding these issues were filed on May 28, 2021. Nasdaq said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe that the claims are without merit and will continue to litigate vigorously." Nasdaq, Inc. manages, operates and provides products and services in four business segments: Market Services, Corporate Services, Information Services and Market Technology. The company is based in New York, New York. NETFLIX INC: Fort Scott Files Video Franchise Fee Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- KOAM reports that the City of Fort Scott moves forward with litigation against Netflix and Hulu. The City claims the companies failed to get authorization to use public rights-of-way, such as internet facilities. Kansas law requires that authorization. Therefore, Netflix and Hulu have failed to pay the related video franchise fee. Nextflix and Hulu's primary businesses are its video services, which offer online streaming including programming. Both companies, according to the petition, do business in Fort Scott, Kansas and other municipalities in the state. The services provided by Netflix and Hulu use Internet protocol technology (i.e. broadband wireline facilities located at least in part in public rights-of-way). According to the class action petition, "As video service providers, Defendants were required to file an application with the Kansas Corporation Commission for a state-issued video service authorization prior to providing video service." The City of Fort Scott says the streaming companies failed to get authorization to use public rights-of-way. "An authorization would have permitted video service providers such as Defendants to use public rights-of-way, as long as said video service provider makes a franchise payment to each city in which it provides service." The required franchise payment must be equal to 5% of gross revenues received by the franchise holder from the provision of services in that city. The City of Fort Scott is looking to require Netflix and Hulu to pay what they owe. The City filed individually and on the behalf of other Kansas municipalities. The petition states that the believed Class Action size to be in excess of 200 municipalities. In addition to not paying and not having correct authorization, the City filed a count of Unjust Enrichment. Count three of the Class Action states, "By not remitting video-provider fees, Netflix and Hulu have received the benefit of doing business in the geographic areas of Plaintiff and other class members without paying required fees, been aware that they were doing business without paying required fees, and accepted and retained this benefit under circumstances that are inequitable or unjust." [GN] NIKOLA CORP: Court to Reevaluate Lead Plaintiff in UCL Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nikola Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Ninth Circuit granted in part the mandamus petition, vacated the district court's December 15, 2020 order, and remanded the case to the District Court to reevaluate the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated class action suit related to Unfair Competition Law (UCL) violations. Beginning on September 15, 2020, six putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and, in one case, violations of the Unfair Competition Law under California law. The complaints generally allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings regarding the Company's business plan and prospects. The actions are: Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-01797-JZB), filed by Daniel Borteanu in the United States District Court of the District of Arizona on September 15, 2020; Salem v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 1:20-cv-04354), filed by Arab Salem in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on September 16, 2020; Wojichowski v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-01819-DLR), filed by John Wojichowski in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on September 17, 2020; Malo v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 5:20-cv-02168), filed by Douglas Malo in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 16, 2020; and Holzmacher, et al. v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-2123-JJT), filed by Albert Holzmacher, Michael Wood and Tate Wood in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on November 3, 2020, and Eves v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-02168-DLR), filed by William Eves in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on November 10, 2020. In October 2020, stipulations by and among the parties to extend the time for the defendants to respond to the complaints until a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and an operative complaint are identified were entered as orders in certain of the filed actions. On November 16, 2020 and December 8, 2020 respectively, orders in the Malo and Salem actions were entered to transfer the actions to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On November 16, 2020, ten motions both to consolidate the pending securities actions and to be appointed as lead plaintiff were filed by putative class members. On December 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated the actions under lead case Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al., No. CV-20-01797-PXL-SPL, and appointed Angelo Baio as the "Lead Plaintiff." On December 23, 2020, a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order appointing the Lead Plaintiff was filed. On December 30, 2020, a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the District Court's Lead Plaintiff order and directing the court to appoint another Lead Plaintiff was filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-73819. The motion for reconsideration was denied on February 18, 2021. On July 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted in part the mandamus petition, vacated the district court's December 15, 2020 order, and remanded the case to the District Court to reevaluate the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff. On January 28, 2021, the district court entered a scheduling order in the consolidated lawsuit. On March 2, 2021, pursuant to a stipulation jointly submitted by the parties, the district court vacated that scheduling order and stayed the securities action pending disposition of the pending mandamus petition. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. Nikola said, "The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which could be material." Nikola Corporation a vertically integrated zero emissions systems provider that designs and manufactures state of the art battery electric and hydrogen electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling stations. The company is based in Phoenix, Arizona. OATLY GROUP: Gross Law Firm Reminds of September 24 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of Oatly Group AB. Shareholders who purchased shares of OTLY during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form/?id=18406&from=5 CLASS PERIOD: May 20, 2021 to July 15, 2021 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued 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. DEADLINE: September 24, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form/?id=18406&from=5. NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of OTLY during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is September 24, 2021. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Occidental Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court entered judgment of dismissal in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 651830/2020. On August 8, 2019, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 9, 2019, Occidental acquired all of the outstanding shares of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, through a transaction in which a wholly-owned subsidiary of Occidental merged with and into Anadarko. On May 26, 2020, a putative securities class action captioned City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 651994/2020 (City of Sterling), was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), based on alleged misstatements in the Securities Act filings, including the registration statement filed in connection with the acquisition of Anadarko and Occidental's related issuance of common stock and debt securities offerings that took place in August 2019. The lawsuit was filed against Occidental, certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of the debt securities offerings and sought damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. Two additional putative class actions were filed in the same court (together with City of Sterling, the State Cases) and the State Cases were consolidated into In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 651830/2020. On March 4, 2021, the court dismissed the complaint, and on July 1, 2021, the court entered judgment. Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Occidental Petroleum Corporation is engaged in the oil and gas exploration and production. OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit in NY Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the purported securities class action suit headed by Royce Setzer, is pending. The Company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purports to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables. The initial complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court, but the dismissal was overturned by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2020. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in August 2020. In November 2020, the Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is fully briefed and pending before the District Court. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in the United States which are operated by independent healthcare operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley, Maryland. ONESPAN INC: Almendariz Securities Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- OneSpan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that court dismissed the securities class action entitled, Almendariz v. OneSpan Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.). A complaint was filed on August 20, 2020 against OneSpan and certain of its officers, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on certain alleged material misstatements and omissions. The case is captioned Almendariz v. OneSpan Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.). Specifically, the plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges, among other things, that certain statements about OneSpan's business were misleading because of defendants' failure to disclose that OneSpan purportedly had inadequate internal procedures and controls over financial reporting and related disclosures; and OneSpan purportedly downplayed the negative impacts of immaterial errors in its financial statements. On April 28, 2021, the Securities Class Action was dismissed by the court without prejudice. OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.) designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity, security, and business productivity that protect and facilitate electronic transactions, via mobile and connected devices. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. ORIGINAL PAPERBACKS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Original Paperbacks, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Original Paperbacks, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06809-ER (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Original Paperbacks -- https://www.originalpaperbacks.com/ -- aims to bring high-quality and creative clothing to fulfill the casual lifestyle needs of their customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal ORLANDO BATHING SUIT: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orlando Bathing Suit, LLC. The case is styled as Crystal Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orlando Bathing Suit, LLC doing business as: Everything But Water, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:21-cv-06578-PA-KK (C.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Orlando Bathing Suit doing business as Everything But Water -- https://www.everythingbutwater.com/ -- offers gorgeous designer swim and resortwear, including bikinis, one piece swimsuits, separates, sundresses, cover ups, hats and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com PLUM PBC: Court Appoints Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Baby Food Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE PLUM BABY FOOD LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All Actions, Case No. 21-CV-913-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order: a. denying the Defendants' motion to transfer the Consolidated Action to the District of New Jersey; and b. appointing Rebecca A. Peterson of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Susana Cruz Hodge of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC as the Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed classes in the Consolidated Action. The consolidated action alleges, inter alia, consumer protection claims arising from a congressional report dated Feb. 4, 2021, in which the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy found that many popular baby and toddler foods possibly contained excessive levels of heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Following release of the report, at least 80 actions were filed against baby food manufacturers, including Defendants Plum, PBC and its then-parent company Campbell Soup Company. Five of those actions were: Ludmila Gulkarov, et al. v. Plum, PBC and Plum, Inc. (Case No. 4:21-CV-913-YGR); Vanessa Mathiesen v. Plum, PBC (Case No. 4:21-CV-1763-YGR); Cindy Pereira v. Campbell Soup Co. and Plum, PBC (Case No. 4:21-CV-1767-YGR); Autumn Ellison v. Plum, PBC and Plum, Inc. (Case No. 21-CV-2015-YGR); and Jessica David, et ano. v. Plum PBC (Case No. 4:21-CV-2059-YGR) ("Consolidated Action"). Currently pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to transfer the Consolidated Action to the District of New Jersey, where four similar actions (also now consolidated) are pending. Also before the Court are two motions of appointment of interim class counsel, one brought by Plaintiff Sarah Brown and the other brought by Plaintiffs Ludmila Gulkarov, Janine Torrence, Kelly McKeon, Josh Crawford, Mayra Moore, Jessica David, Heather Age, Autumn Ellison, and Vanessa Mathiesen ("Gulkarov Plaintiffs"). Motion to Transfer Consideration of a motion to transfer venue is a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must determine whether the action is one that "might have been brought" in the transferee forum. Second, it must determine whether transferring the action is warranted based on the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. A. Step One Having reviewed the evidence submitted, Judge Rogers is still not persuaded that courts in New Jersey could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Plum in the cases subject to the motion. Aside from two self-serving declarations by Campbell, the Defendants have failed to proffer any evidence demonstrating that Plum was, in fact, headquartered in New Jersey or that any of the relevant activities giving rise to the claims occurred there. Conversely, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs proffer a Statement of Information filed on Jan. 27, 2021, with the California Secretary of State indicating that Plum's mailing address, principal executive office, and executive officers are all based in Emeryville, California. When confronted with this document, the Defendants claim that this was an erroneous filing (without any further explanation) and proffered a Certificate of Surrender filed on February 22, 2021 with the California Secretary of State. However, this subsequent filing does not establish that Plum's executive office and officers were in New Jersey. Rather, it only lists a Camden, New Jersey mailing address for copies of legal service. Moreover, even assuming that this document effectuated a change in Plum's principal place of business, there is no indication that it functioned retroactively. The Gulkarov action, the first action filed in the District arising from the congressional report, commenced on Feb. 5, 2021. Accordingly, the Certificate of Surrender does not support a finding of personal jurisdiction over Plum in New Jersey. In light of the foregoing, the Judge is unable to conclude, based on the Defendants' showing on the motion, that the action could have properly been brought in New Jersey. B. Step Two Even assuming the action could have properly been brought in New Jersey, Judge Rogres holds that the Defendants fail to show that the requested transfer would better convenience the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice. In sum, she finds that the balance of the factors weighs against transfer. The Defendants fail to persuade her that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and ease of access to the evidence weigh in favor of transfer. She says, while feasibility of consolidation with other claims supports transfer, relative court congestion and local interest in the controversy do not. The remaining factors, the Plaintiff's choice of forum and familiarity with the applicable law, are neutral. Accordingly, based on its discretion, the Judge concludes that transfer is not appropriate and thus denies the motion. Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel On June 29, 2021, the Court received applications for co-lead counsel from (1) the Gulkarov plaintiffs for the appointment of Rebecca A. Peterson of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Susana Cruz Hodge of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos Bacine as an Executive Committee member of this action; and (2) Plaintiff Sarah Brown for the appointment of Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Annick M. Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Rachel Soffin of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. The Defendants take no position on these motions. Having carefully reviewed the submissions by the proposed counsel, Judge Rogers appoints Rebecca A. Peterson and Susana Cruz Hodge as the Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed classes in the Consolidated Action. At this juncture, the Judge declines to formally appoint an Executive Committee member. Nothing prohibits the Interim Co-Lead Counsel from delegating responsibilities to Mr. Basser. If necessary, the Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel may petition the Court to formally appoint one but would have to show good cause. However, at this point, the Judge finds that such a structure would merely increase administrative expense. Conclusion The motion to transfer is denied. The Gulkarov Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim class counsel is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Brown's motion in this regard is denied. The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a proposed schedule for the filing of the amended complaint and response thereto within five business days of the date of the Order. The Interim Co-Lead Counsel must serve a copy of the Order promptly by overnight delivery service, electronic mail, facsimile, or other expeditious electronic means on the counsel for the Plaintiffs in each related action not yet consolidated in this proceeding to the extent that the Interim Co-Lead Counsel is aware of any such action(s) and on all attorneys for the Plaintiffs whose cases have been so consolidated but who have not yet registered for ECF. The Order terminates Docket Numbers 34, 70, and 71. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2sza9n9j from Leagle.com. PORSCHE AG: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Warranty Repairs -------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Porsche class action lawsuit alleges California consumers pay for parts and repairs that should be covered under California emissions regulations. The Porsche lawsuit includes the following consumers. "All persons in California who have been owners or lessees of PORSCHE vehicles and who have paid for repairs and parts that should have been covered under PORSCHE's "high-priced warranted parts" 7-year 70,000-mile California emissions warranty (the "Class")." However, the lawsuit says the plaintiffs reserve the right to add more states other than California. According to the Porsche class action lawsuit, the automaker fails to properly identify the parts that should be classified as "high-cost emissions warranty parts" under California regulations. Allegedly so it can save money on warranty repairs, the class action lawsuit says Porsche limits the parts that should be covered by the emissions warranty for 7 years and 70,000 miles. This allegedly allows Porsche to limit the warranty coverage for those parts to only 4 years and 50,000 miles. For more than 20 years, the California Code of Regulations has a section entitled "Emission Control System Warranty Requirements for 1990 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Car, Light-Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines." This requires Porsche to list to regulators all vehicle parts that are "high-priced warranted parts." The class action says this requires Porsche to provide a 7-year 70,000-mile warranty to California consumers relating to all high-priced warranted parts. "A 'warranted part' is defined as, 'any part installed on a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine by the vehicle or engine manufacturer, or installed in a warranty repair, which affects any regulated emission from a motor vehicle or engine which is subject to California emission standards.'" The plaintiffs claim Porsche intentionally omits from the warranty booklet the parts that should be listed as high-priced warranted parts that should be covered under the 7-year 70,000-mile emissions warranty. The plaintiffs allege Porsche forces customers to pay for parts and repairs the automaker should legally pay for under the warranty. The Porsche class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Ferry, et al., vs. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al. The plaintiffs are represented by the Law Office of Robert L. Starr. [GN] PREFERRED CAREGIVERS: Court Junks Badon Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BADON, ET AL. v. PREFERRED CAREGIVERS AND SITTERS, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-01065-ILRL-MBN (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle enters an opinion denying the plaintiff Anthony Badon's motion to certify a class. The Court said, "the plaintiffs have motioned for conditional class certification under Lusardi, and defendants have objected utilizing that same framework. However, the Fifth Circuit has since reprobated Lusardi and reproached the entire concept of conditional certification. Thus, the basis for plaintiffs' motion for "conditional" certification is rejected. Therefore, no later than 20 days from entry of this order, plaintiffs and defendants shall jointly meet to discuss the scope of discovery necessary to determine which putative class members are sufficiently "similarly situated" to justify notice. Within days after concluding those discussions, parties shall jointly submit a report with a proposed discovery and deposition schedule for the purpose of answering whether named and potential opt-in parties are too divisive a group to be "similarly situated", along with a briefing schedule to hear a contemplated motion for class certification. Thereafter, the Court will convene a status conference via video conference with parties' counsel." This case arises from the defendant Preferred Caregivers owned by defendants Barry Wright and Millicent alleged practice of misclassifying employees (potential plaintiff class) as independent contractors in order to deprive them of otherwise federally mandated overtime pay. Mr. Badon alleges that he began working for defendants in 2019 to provide home health services for defendants' clients. Throughout Mr. Badon's employment for defendants, the latter controlled his schedules, rates of pay, and job requirements. Plaintiff Badon initially filed a Collective Action Complaint on March 31, 2020. Preferred Caregivers is a home health agency serving New Orleans, Louisiana. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Aug. 5 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sBVrz3 at no extra charge.[CC] PTC INC: 401(K) Plan Related Suit in Massachusetts Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its 401(k) Plan. On September 17, 2020, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against PTC, the Investment Committee for the PTC Inc. 401(k) Plan, and the Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging claims regarding the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in the oversight of the Plan, principally by allegedly selecting and retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and costs than other available investment options, causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees and suffer lower returns on their investments, and by allegedly failing to monitor other fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of Plan participants from September 17, 2014 through the date of any judgment. After the company's motions to dismiss the complaint were denied, the company filed an answer to the complaint on May 4, 2021. PTC said, "We are currently unable to reasonably estimate what effect the ultimate outcome might have, if any, on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." PTC Inc. develops and delivers software products and solutions worldwide. It operates in two segments, Software Products and Services. The Company was formerly known as Parametric Technology Corporation and changed its name to PTC Inc. in January 2013. PTC Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Needham, Massachusetts. RADIUS GLOBAL: Daidone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Angelo Daidone, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04538-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions LLC -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- provides debt recovery services and customer contact solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Millman & Powell Won't Be Tried Separately ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OPAL MILLMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION F/K/A UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:16-CV-312-HAB (N.D. Ind.), Judge Holly A. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, denied the Defendants' motions for separate trials. Once separate claims, the suits filed by Opal Millman and Eric and Laury Powell were consolidated "for all purposes" by the Court on motion by the Defendants and over the Plaintiffs' objection. The Defendants have thought better of that procedural move. They now come before the Court asking that the consolidated case be tried to two juries, one for Millman and one for the Powells. The Defendants claim that, because of the differences in alleged injuries and exposures, they will be "severely prejudiced" by potential juror confusion. Procedural History The case began in 2016 when Millman filed a class action complaint in the Huntington County Superior Court. That suit was removed by the Defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act. Six months later, the Powells filed a federal action, naming the same Defendants, seeking injunctive relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). The two suits were filed by the same law firm and, for the most part, alleged identical facts. Noting the similarity in the cases, the Defendants moved to consolidate the matters. As the Plaintiffs noted, the Defendants were not equivocal in their belief that the cases were substantively the same; the Defendants stated it forcefully and repeatedly. The Court agreed with Defendants, with Judge Phillip Simon holding that "absent consolidation, there would be separate trials involving identical legal claims and substantially overlapping witnesses and documentary evidence. That would waste judicial time and resources for claims that could be more efficiently adjudicated in one trial." Thus, the matters were consolidated for "all further proceedings." After more than two years of class-related discovery, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a liability only class action in April 2019. That motion was denied. In summary, the Court found that the Plaintiffs could not show the typicality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) or that the case was amenable to particular issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4). The case then proceeded on the Plaintiffs' individual claims only. Following eighteen months of additional discovery, the Defendants filed these motions for separate trials. Factual Background The parties' briefs discuss the same case, but one could be forgiven for assuming otherwise. Depending on the brief one reads, the cases of Millman and the Powells are either: (1) virtually identical, save some personal details; or (2) very different, sharing only a handful of background facts. These competing viewpoints are at the heart of the separate trial issue. A. Facts Shared by All Plaintiffs At the most basic level, the case arises out of Defendants admitted release of hazardous chemicals, including chlorinated solvents like trichloroethylene ("TCE"), in and around the town of Andrews, Indiana. These releases flowed from two facilities: a manufacturing facility owned by Defendant Raytheon's corporate predecessor ("UTA Facility") and a gas station now owned and operated by the L.D. Williams Defendants ("Gas Station"). Workers at the UTA Facility used TCE, a known human carcinogen, to clean metal parts in two degreaser pits at the southern end of the property. The Plaintiffs have identified at least five employees who will testify to the use and improper disposal of TCE. The chemical was not used in small amounts -- in a filing with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") in 1993, UTA reported that it used as much as 14.5 tons of TCE per year. B. Facts Specific to Individual Plaintiffs The most obvious difference between Millman and the Powells is the claimed injuries. Millman claims that she has developed trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic condition affecting the trigeminal nerve, because of her exposure to the VOCs emitted by Defendants. The Powells, on the other hand, allege only a general fear and increased risk of potential future health effects. Indoor air testing of Millman's residence began in July 2006. Based on the results of that testing, a vapor mitigation system was installed in Millman's crawlspace. Since March 2017, all tests for VOCs in Millman's home have shown levels below applicable IDEM screening levels. Testing of the Powells' home did not begin until 2013. That testing has always shown VOC levels below applicable IDEM limits. Thus, no vapor mitigation system has been installed in their home. As one would expect, the three Plaintiffs have different personal histories. Each have different medical backgrounds, treating physicians, and experts that will testify about their damages. They have lived at their respective residences for different periods of time. They have been exposed to differen t levels of VOCs and the exposure came from different sources, including the Plaintiffs' employment and hobbies. Legal Analysis Understanding that two trials rarely promote judicial economy when one might suffice, the Defendants assert that separate trials are required to avoid prejudice. They claim that, if the claims are tried jointly, "the sympathetic nature of the Plaintiffs' claims may cause the jury to disregard significant differences in each of their medical, residential, and employment histories, along with the stark difference in the type of injuries they allege." Reduced to its essence, the Defendants' argument is that a jury cannot be expected to keep the facts in Millman's claim separate from those of the Powells. Judge Brady does not share the Defendants' concerns, largely because of the "significant differences" noted throughout their briefs. If their briefs are accurate, virtually all the causation and damages evidence will be different for each Plaintiff. This includes causation experts, medical histories, medical providers and treating physicians, and evidence on each Plaintiffs' exposure history. The Defendants' own experts will provide different opinions about each Plaintiff. Even if the claims are tried together, then, there appears to be little, if any, overlap in the evidence to be presented as to the details of each claim. What this tells Judge Brady is that it will be easy for jurors to keep the claims straight. She finds it less likely that the evidence will confuse jurors than in many other multi-claim and multi-party cases. The Defendants' preferred authority, Bailey v. Northern Tr. Co., 196 F.R.D. 513 (N.D. Ill. 2000), an employment discrimination case, does not alter the Judge's analysis. First, she notes that separate trial decisions in other cases will always be of limited value since the decision must be made on a "case by case" basis. She also believes that the Defendants have greatly minimized the foundational evidence that would need to be duplicated in the event of separate trials. Similarly, they claim that the Court should not be concerned with evidence about their release of toxic chemicals because "the fact that contamination was released and because present in the groundwater has been known and admitted by Raytheon since 1993." Finally, any prejudice to Defendant can be cured through a properly instructed and informed jury. Yes, prejudice to a party is reason enough for separate trials, Judge Brady notes. That said, Judge Brady holds, mere speculation that a party might be prejudiced by certain evidence is an inadequate basis to grant a separate trial. But mere speculation is all the Defendants offer. She does not accept or share that speculation. Conclusion For these reasons, the Defendants' motions for separate trials are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/v59tuzkw from Leagle.com. REALOGY GROUP: Appeal in Whitlach Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County), is pending. This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20, 2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing business as Century 21 M&M. The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real Estate, as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee's independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in California. In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting one cause of action for alleged civil penalties under PAGA in June 2020 and continued to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA. As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all non-individualized relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well as attorneys' fees. Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional penalties. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. The demurrer filed by Century 21 M&M (and joined by Century 21) on August 3, 2020 to the plaintiff's amended complaint, was granted by the Court on November 10, 2020, dismissing the case without leave to replead. In January 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order granting the demurrer and filed its brief in support of the appeal on June 28, 2021. This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating uncertainties. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. RENOVACARE INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 14 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against RenovaCare, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under 21-cv-13930, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare securities between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare securities during the Class Period, you have until September 14, 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. RenovaCare is a development stage company that has not generated any revenue since its inception and has no commercialized products. Its activities primarily consist of research and development, business development, and capital raises. It owns the CellMist System, which consists of a treatment method for cell isolation for the regeneration of human skin cells and other tissues (the CellMist Solution) and a solution sprayer device to deliver cells to the treatment area (the SkinGun). The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) at the direction of the Company's controlling shareholder and Chairman, Harmel Rayat ("Rayat"), RenovaCare engaged in a promotional campaign to issue misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price; (ii) when OTC Markets Group, Inc. ("OTC Markets") inquired, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially false and misleading press release claiming that no director, officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the purported third party's promotional materials; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were defective; and (iv) 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. On May 28, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued a litigation release stating that RenovaCare was being charged with alleged securities fraud. According to the SEC's complaint, between July 2017 and January 2018, Rayat "arranged, and caused RenovaCare to pay for, a promotional campaign designed to increase the company's stock price." Specifically, "Rayat was closely involved in directing the promotion and editing promotional materials, and arranged to funnel payments to the publisher through consultants to conceal RenovaCare's involvement in the campaign." When OTC Markets requested that RenovaCare explain its relationship to the promotion, the complaint alleges that "Rayat and RenovaCare then drafted and issued a press release and a Form 8-K that contained material misrepresentations and omissions denying Rayat's and the company's involvement in the promotion." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.66, or 24.8%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.00 per share on June 2, 2021. 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 CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Bid to Reconsider Remand of Gordon Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington: (i) denied the Defendant's Motion for Partial Reconsideration; and (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Expedite. The case concerns the "Refer a Friend" ("RAF") marketing feature from the Defendant's online investment brokerage application, which Plaintiff alleges violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by way of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"). The factual background is set forth in the Court's Order Granting Class Certification. On Jan. 25, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. It appointed (i) Isaac Gordon as the Class Representative; (ii) Kirk D. Miller of Kirk D. Miller, P.S. as the Class Counsel; and (iii) Brian G. Cameron and Shayne J. Sutherland of Cameron Sutherland, PLLC were also appointed 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 the 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 FAC 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 that the lawsuit was manufactured, did the Plaintiff amend his answer to reveal that John Cameron sent the allegedly offending text message, that he met John Cameron in early January 2019 at a wine bar and restaurant that the Plaintiff owned in downtown Spokane, that the Plaintiff met John Cameron several times during regular business hours at his wine bar, that Plaintiff also played fantasy role-playing games and card games with John Cameron on several occasions between March 2019 and August 2019, that he has socialized with him thereafter, and that the Plaintiff provided his phone number to John Cameron. On May 26, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's Motions to Seal and Stay. In that Order, it stated that the proceeding, including all deadlines, class discovery, and class notice is stayed pending the Defendant's discovery into these new allegations. Following that Order, the parties engaged in extensive motion practice, including the Defendant's motion for decertification. On July 27, 2021, the Court ruled on the pending motions. In that Order, the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to withdraw as class representative, granted the Defendant's unopposed motion for decertification, denied the Defendant's motion to disqualify class counsel, granted E. Michelle Drake and Sophia M. Rios' motion to withdraw as class counsel for the Plaintiff, denied as moot the remaining discovery motions, and remanded the case back to State Court due to the one remaining state law claim for $500 on the grounds that the Court had no subject matter jurisdiction. Following that Order, the Defendant filed the present motions. The parties timely filed their respective response and reply. The Defendant moves for partial reconsideration of the Court's prior order that remanded the case on the grounds that the Court maintained subject matter jurisdiction under Ninth Circuit law interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff argues that the case no longer belongs in federal court or in the alternative, he seeks leave to amend to remove all class allegations. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit held in United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010), that under CAFA, "post-filing developments do not defeat jurisdiction if jurisdiction was properly invoked as of the time of filing." In that case, however, the court noted that there are exceptions to this rule, "such as when a case becomes moot in the course of litigation or when there was no jurisdiction to begin with because the jurisdictional allegations were frivolous from the start." The Defendant relies on United Steel and its stated proposition that a class action, "once properly removed, stays removed." However, the Ninth Circuit has since walked back this general rule: "Taken at face value, the stated maxim proves too much: It squarely contradicts the statutory language, which provides for remand of CAFA actions on (mostly) the same terms as any other case removed to federal court." The primary concern in United Steel was "thwarting jurisdictional ping-pong game[s] in which parties lob a case back and forth between federal and state courts as post-filing developments occur." The case was in a procedural posture that is distinguishable from United Steel, in that questions were raised as to whether the Court has, or ever had, jurisdiction. The Defendant argues that the case was fraudulent from the outset but that the Court nonetheless has subject matter jurisdiction over such fraudulent claims. Judge Rice holds that the Defendant cannot have it both ways. He says such fraudulent activities that the Court expressed concern over, makes the initiation of this action frivolous from the start. Moreover, the case is essentially moot where the class is decertified, the Plaintiff has withdrawn as the class representative, and the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff may move for voluntary dismissal. Under these circumstances, there is no risk of jurisdictional ping-pong because "this rally has concluded." The Judge finds the Court has not committed clear error or made a decision that is manifestly unjust. Therefore, the Defendant's motion for partial reconsideration is denied. Accordingly, Judge Rice denied the Defendant's Motion for Partial Reconsideration. He granted its Motion to Expedite. The District Court Executive is directed to enter the Order and furnish copies to counsel. The file remains closed. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cvcdjc5 from Leagle.com. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Amend Sanchez Putative Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion seeking to amend the complaint in Crystal Sanchez, et. Al. v. Santander Bank, N.A., No. 17-cv-5775, is pending. Santander Bank, N.A. (SBNA) is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, captioned Crystal Sanchez, et. Al. v. Santander Bank, N.A., No. 17-cv-5775. The lawsuit alleges that SBNA failed to pay overtime to current and former branch operations managers. The Court denied SBN's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion seeking to amend its complaint to add additional state law claims is fully briefed. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Initial OK of Ruf-Tepper Settlement Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs in Daniel and Rebecca Ruf-Tepper v. Santander Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-00501, filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement with SBNA pursuant to which SBNA will pay a total of $2 million to resolve the litigation. Santander Bank, N.A. (SBNA) is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Daniel and Rebecca Ruf-Tepper v. Santander Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-00501. The Tepper Lawsuit, filed in January 2020, alleges that SBNA is obligated to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts pursuant to state law. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and SBNA has filed a motion to dismiss. On July 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement with SBNA pursuant to which SBNA will pay a total of $2 million to resolve the litigation. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that that the plaintiffs in Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et. al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243, have appealed the order of dismissal made by the District Court. Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR), the Company and Santander are defendants in a putative class action alleging federal securities and common law claims relating to the solicitation and purchase of more than $180.0 million of Puerto Rico bonds and $101.0 million of CEFs during the period from December 2012 to October 2013. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et. al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243. The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds. In May 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 22, 2020, the District Court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Agar Class Action Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovey is stayed in the class action suit initiated by Calvin Agar against Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI). On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar, a former employee, filed a Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against SNI. On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against SNI. Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay on employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which concern the wage statements. The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported overtime pay on its wage statements. SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or any specific guidance from California decisional law, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contended that certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in the case in December 2019, which was not successful. On March 17, 2020, the Court granted Agar leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted was subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed a Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal of the remaining claim, on May 1, 2020. The Court overruled the Demurrer on September 1, 2020. SNI requested discretionary appellate review of this decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District granted SNI's application on February 19, 2021 and ordered briefing by the Parties. Discovery is currently stayed in the matter pending the outcome of appellate review. SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this issue. SNI intends to continue to vigorously defend its interests, absent a reasonable resolution. Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7, 1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Kelley Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Kelley v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC; Bryan v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI). On March 4, 2020, Monique Kelley filed a Class Action Complaint against SNI in Merced County Superior Court in California. Ms. Kelley worked at SNI for less than a week in 2017 through a temporary staffing company. Ms. Kelley has brought suit for purported violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code on her own behalf, and on behalf of all current and former California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of SNI. Ms. Kelley specifically asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest break premiums, failure to timely pay final wages upon termination, non-compliant wage statements, and unreimbursed business expenses. SNI filed a Demurrer on May 21, 2020, seeking dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that it contains only boilerplate allegations that fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and it is otherwise uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. SNI further sought dismissal of one cause of action based upon the statute of limitations. SNI simultaneously filed a Motion to Strike certain allegations in the Complaint as improperly pled. The Court sustained the Demurrer with leave to amend on August 25, 2020. The Court also granted the Motion to Strike. Ms. Kelley has amended her original pleading, asserting the same causes of action, to which SNI has filed a responsive pleading. The parties have begun discovery. Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7, 1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. SPORTSTRADE INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportstrade, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Sportstrade, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04548 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sporttrade -- https://getsporttrade.com/ -- is America's most dynamic sports trading platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com STABLE ROAD: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Stable Road Acquisition Corp. ("Stable Road" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SRAC) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are encouraged to contact the firm before September 13, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. Stable Road's merger target, Momentus, held a test of its key technology in 2019 that failed to meet its criteria for success. The government of the United States considered Momentus CEO Mikhail Kokorich to be a national security threat, jeopardizing the Company's potential commercial success. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Stable Road, investors suffered damages. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Menzel Files Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sharon Menzel, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00781-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability for Deceptive Trade Practices. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- https://www.toyota.com/usa/ -- is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq. NORMAND LAW PLLC P.O. Box 140036 Orlando, FL 32814 Phone: (407) 603-6031 Email: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com TRANSUNION LLC: Greenberg Traurig Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq., Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq, and Gregory A. Nylen, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, discussed court rulings in the law firm's Class Action Litigation Newsletter - Summer 2021: Supreme Court, First Circuit, and Second Circuit. Highlights from this issue include: Supreme Court rules that class members who did not suffer concrete harm do not have Article III standing to sue for violation of a federal statute. Supreme Court holds that generic nature of a misstatement is important evidence to show no price impact at the class certification stage, but that defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact. District court in the First Circuit (D. Mass.) grants motion to strike nationwide class allegations at the pleading stage. Second Circuit holds that a plaintiff cannot establish injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing where personally identifiable information was inadvertently disclosed and not yet misused by any third party. Third Circuit follows majority rule that American Pipe tolling applies to plaintiffs who file individual suits before a ruling on class certification. Fourth Circuit finds ERISA plaintiff established Article III standing and reverses denial of class certification. District court in Fifth Circuit (N.D. Tex.) denies class certification because individual issues predominate in case alleging fraud and misrepresentation. Divided Sixth Circuit panel affirms dismissal of proposed insurance coverage class action. Seventh Circuit affirms summary judgment for defendant in consumer class action, finding no reasonable consumer would be materially misled by alleged misrepresentations. Eighth Circuit reverses class certification, holding that plaintiff's expert's computer technology and algorithm cannot overcome individualized inquiry into economic loss. Ninth Circuit reverses approval of class action settlement, holding that under revised Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii), a district court must review a proposed class settlement for unfair collusion. D.C. district court permits tolling of putative class members' claims under American Pipe because they are based on the same acts and will be proven by the same evidence as prior claims. U.S. Supreme Court TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, __ S. Ct. __, 2021 WL 2599472 (U.S. June 25, 2021) Supreme Court rules that class members who did not suffer "a concrete harm" do not have Article III standing to pursue their claims in federal court. The Supreme Court addressed whether a violation of a federal statute providing for a private right of action, without concrete harm, will provide standing in federal court. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision approving a damages award to 6,332 class members asserting that TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by mislabeling their credit reports as a "potential match" to a name on the list of terrorists, drug traffickers, and other criminals maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control. These class members comprised more than three-quarters of the total class, but their claims were distinct in that TransUnion had only flagged their credit reports internally, without distributing the reports to potential creditors or any other third party. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh's decision began by stating "no concrete harm, no standing", and explained that mislabeling, alone, was not a "concrete injury" needed to establish Article III standing, because "the retention of information lawfully obtained, without further disclosure, traditionally has not provided the basis for a lawsuit in American courts." Thus, "[t]he mere presence of an inaccuracy in an internal credit file, if it is not disclosed to a third party, causes no concrete harm." The risk of future harm resulting from potential distribution to third parties also was not enough to establish concrete harm. Though the Court recognized that someone "exposed to a risk of future harm may pursue forward-looking, injunctive relief to prevent the harm from occurring, … so long as the risk of harm is sufficiently imminent and substantial," here, the plaintiffs sought only money damages. And Justice Kavanaugh explained, "a plaintiff's standing to seek injunctive relief does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff has standing to seek retrospective damages." Id. at 20. The dissent by Justice Thomas took issue with the fact that the TransUnion credit reports erroneously flagged many law-abiding people inaccurately and found that these actions were significant enough. Among other things, the dissent noted that "each class member established a violation of his or her private rights" and therefore had "a sufficient injury to sue in federal court." The second dissent -- authored by Justice Kagan and joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor -- joined Justice Thomas's dissent with one caveat. In Justice Thomas's view, any violation of a statutory right could give rise to Article III standing, while Justice Kagan maintained that some concrete injury is still needed. Even so, Justice Kagan proffered that courts should defer to Congress's judgment "to determine when something causes harm or risk in the real world," and that "[o]verriding an authorization to sue is appropriate when but only when Congress could not reasonably have thought that a suit will contribute to compensating or preventing the harm at issue." For more information on this case, see June 2021 GT Alert, 'No Concrete Harm, No Standing': Supreme Court Reverses Judgment Where Class Members Did Not Have Standing. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys., __ S. Ct. __, 2021 WL 2519035 (U.S. June 21, 2021) Supreme Court holds that (1) the generic nature of a misstatement is important evidence of price impact in a securities fraud case, and the district court should consider all (not just some) evidence probative of price impact at the class certification stage, and (2) once a plaintiff invokes the Basic presumption of class-wide reliance, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact. In this purported securities fraud suit against Goldman Sachs and three of its former executives (collectively, GS), plaintiffs alleged GS had misrepresented the existence of conflicts of interest surrounding several collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions involving subprime mortgages, and that the plaintiffs were purportedly injured after those conflicts were revealed in, among other things, a 2010 SEC complaint, and GS's stock price dropped. After discovery, plaintiffs moved for class certification, invoking the presumption of class-wide reliance established by the Supreme Court in Basic Inc v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). The district court granted the motion and held that GS had failed to meet its burden to rebut the presumption, notwithstanding evidence that GS's stock had not decreased on at least 34 occasions when the media had reported on the alleged conflicts prior to the filing of the SEC complaint. On appeal, the Second Circuit unanimously vacated the decision, reasoning that the district court had failed to apply the proper standard in considering whether the presumption invoked by plaintiffs had been rebutted (i.e., by a preponderance of the evidence) and should have considered evidence that GS's stock price had not decreased when the media reported on the company's alleged conflicts of interest prior to 2010. The Second Circuit also reasoned that a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. On remand, the district court granted class certification again, GS appealed, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit correctly held that a defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact once the Basic presumption is invoked by a plaintiff. In so holding, the Court disagreed that a defendant need only produce "any competent evidence of a lack of price impact" to rebut the Basic presumption at the class certification stage, interpreting its prior opinions as having assigned to the defendant the burden of persuasion with respect to price impact, too. The Supreme Court also confirmed that the generic nature of a misstatement is not only relevant to price impact, but "often will be important evidence of price impact because, as a rule of thumb, 'a more-general statement will affect a security's price less than a more specific statement on the same question.'" The Court repeatedly emphasized that courts must consider "all" evidence probative of the price impact issue, "regardless of whether the evidence is also relevant to a merits question like materiality." Finding it "unclear" whether the Second Circuit considered GS's evidence -- in particular, expert testimony regarding the generic nature of the alleged misstatements -- the Court vacated the decision below and remanded with an instruction for the Second Circuit to "take into account all record evidence relevant to price impact." Justice Sotomayor concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Sotomayor agreed with the Court's answers to the questions presented but disagreed with the Court's judgment to vacate and remand because she believed the Second Circuit properly considered the generic nature of GS's statements. Justice Gorsuch, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito also concurred in part and dissented in part in a separate opinion. These justices disagreed that the defendant should bear the burden of persuasion on price impact and characterized the majority's ruling as the first time the Court had ever placed a burden of persuasion on the defendant with respect to an element of a plaintiff's case. For more information on this case, see June 2021 GT Alert, Rebutting the Presumption of Class-Wide Reliance at the Class Certification Stage (Part II): Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court's Decision in Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Ret. Sys. (2021). First Circuit Downing v. Keurig Green Mt., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110334 (D. Mass. June 11, 2021) District court strikes nationwide putative class claims at pleading stage. Plaintiff asserted that the defendant deceptively advertised its products as recyclable when they allegedly were not according to federal regulations and in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A -- the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff's complaint proposed two classes -- one consisting of persons who purchased the products in Massachusetts and one consisting of all product purchasers nationwide. After expressing caution about striking class-action allegations at the pleading stage, the district court struck the Chapter 93A nationwide class allegations from the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). In doing so, the district court explained that, although Chapter 93A does not require a plaintiff to reside in Massachusetts, courts consider where the plaintiff acted in reliance on the alleged misrepresentations, where the plaintiff received the alleged misrepresentations, where the defendant made the alleged misrepresentations, and the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties when assessing whether a plaintiff may proceed under Chapter 93A. The district court placed greater emphasis on the "place of reliance" factor than the defendant's principal place of business and concluded that, because the alleged misrepresentations were made on the product packages themselves, the plaintiff (and putative class members) would have seen and acted in reliance on those alleged misrepresentations outside of Massachusetts, meaning they were not covered by Chapter 93A for those residing outside of Massachusetts. Second Circuit McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs., LLC, 995 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2021) Second Circuit holds that a plaintiff cannot establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing where their personal information was inadvertently disclosed and not yet misused by any third party, and declines to consider protective measures taken as part of the standing analysis. This case arose out of an email sent by mistake to all approximately 65 employees of Carlos Lopez & Associates (CLA). The email contained sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) of approximately 130 then-current and former employees. CLA emailed the then-current employees to address the accidental email but did not contact any of the former employees regarding the disclosure or take any other corrective action. Three individuals whose information had been shared then filed a putative class action complaint. Notably, plaintiffs did not allege that their PII had been shared outside of CLA or misused by third parties, or that they were the victims of fraud or identity theft, but rather, claimed that "because their PII had been disclosed to all of CLA's then-current employees, they were 'at imminent risk of suffering identity theft' and becoming the victims of 'unknown but certainly impending future crimes.'" CLA moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, among other things. The parties reached a class settlement, but in advance of the fairness hearing, the district court sua sponte ordered further briefing on the issue of Article III standing. The district court ultimately found that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they failed to allege '"an injury that is concrete and particularized and certainly impending." As such, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting it was "powerless to approve the parties' proposed class settlement." On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, finding that the alleged "increased risk of identity theft" was not sufficient to confer Article III standing. In so ruling, the court was persuaded by, among other things, the fact that the data disclosure at issue was inadvertent (and not a cyberattack) and plaintiffs did not allege that their PII had been misused. The court also declined to consider the proactive measures plaintiffs took to protect themselves in assessing standing, noting that their efforts against a hypothetical future threat "cannot create an injury." Pirone v. City of New York, No. 17-cv-3070, 2021 WL 2184894 (E.D.N.Y. May 28, 2021) District court denies plaintiff's request to amend a complaint to include putative class allegations due to the belated nature of the request and the prejudice it would cause. Plaintiff brought an action alleging that a New York police officer used excessive force while arresting him, and that the New York Police Department unlawfully handcuffed him during his subsequent hospitalization based on a policy requiring that, among other things, all hospitalized suspects be handcuffed. Three years after he commenced his action on a pro se basis, and more than a year after fact discovery closed, plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to certify a class of all hospitalized prisoners subject to the purported handcuffing policy. In denying the request, the district court explained that prejudice is "perhaps the most important factor" bearing on the Rule 15(a) analysis. It ultimately held that "[t]he hour is late for plaintiff to seek to transform this case into a class action," highlighting that plaintiff waited to bring this request until "more than a year after the close of fact discovery, more than two years after his counsel first appeared, and nearly three years after he commenced the action." The court explained that parties may not "strategically withhold all notice that they plan to move for class certification until they deem it most advantageous." The court also noted that transforming the case into a class action would cause defendant undue prejudice because it would "fundamentally transform the litigation in a manner burdensome to defendants" as a class action is "more costly, more time-consuming, and exposes defendants to more substantial recoveries than an individual [] suit." Chen v. Hunan Manor Enter., No. 17-cv-802, 2021 WL 2282642 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2021) Report and recommendation denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification based solely on the inadequacy of proposed class counsel. Nine former employees of defendants' restaurants alleged that defendants failed to pay employees minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours pay and failed to give employees a wage notice at the time of hire. Plaintiffs moved for class certification, but the Magistrate Judge denied the motion solely based on plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate that their counsel would adequately represent the class. Defendants argued that plaintiffs' proposed class counsel was inadequate because the conduct of counsel, John Troy, and his firm, Troy Law PLLC, in previous cases and in the current litigation was inadequate. The Magistrate Judge agreed, citing numerous reasons. First, the Second Circuit previously upheld the decertification of a class due to inadequate representation by Troy Law and John Troy individually in Jin v. Shanghai Original, Inc., 990 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2021). The court noted that the derelictions described in Jin could by themselves have justified the denial of the class certification motion in this case. Second, another court recently rejected Troy Law as class counsel in Rodpracha v. Pongsri Thai Rest. Corp., 2021 WL 1733515 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021), and other courts have imposed sanctions as a result of Troy Law's conduct and the conduct of its attorneys. In other cases, this proposed class counsel was found to "repeatedly fail[ ] to comply" with court deadlines, fail to file a revised motion for default judgment, and "fail[ ] to submit jointly proposed jury instructions, a jointly proposed verdict sheet, or exhibits in usable form." The Magistrate Judge found these other cases compelling evidence of Mr. Troy and Troy Law's "lack of adequacy to represent a class." As for proposed class counsel's conduct in this case, the court pointed to the fact that counsel "cancelled multiple depositions for plaintiffs at the last minute in the case, sometimes on the day of the scheduled depositions" and missed various court deadlines. In addition, counsel sought to add six new defendants to the case, and the court denied the request due to counsel's unexplained failure to pursue the remedy diligently. The court found these tactics and unexplained delays rendered proposed class counsel inadequate. Aaron Van Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Layal Bishara, Andrea N. Chidyllo, Gregory Franklin, Brian D. Straw also contributed to this article. [GN] TRUCK INSURANCE: 54-40 Brewing Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as 54-40 Brewing Company LLC, a Washington limited liability company, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Case No. 21-00002-01337-34 was removed from the Thurston County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 13, 2021). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-05586 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Truck Insurance Exchange -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is one of the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle A Sturm, Esq. Nicholas A. Thede, Esq. FOREMAN STURM & THEDE LLP PO BOX 13098 Portland, OR 97213 Phone: (503) 477-4693 Email: kyle@foremansturm.com nick.thede@foremansturm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jared Kiess, Esq. Ronald J Clark, Esq. BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY (SEA) 925 Fourth Ave., Ste. 800 Seattle, WA 98104-1157 Phone: (206) 292-8930 Email: Jared.Kiess@bullivant.com ron.clark@bullivant.com TRUCK INSURANCE: R2B2 Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as R2B2 LLC doing business as: Russell and Bode DDS, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Case No. 21-00002-00091-34 was removed from the Thurston County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 13, 2021). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-05585 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Truck Insurance Exchange -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is one of the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy C. Williams-Derry, Esq. Ian S Birk, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA) 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com Ibirk@kellerrohrback.com The Defendant is represented by: Jared Kiess, Esq. Ronald J Clark, Esq. BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY (SEA) 925 Fourth Ave., Ste. 800 Seattle, WA 98104-1157 Phone: (206) 292-8930 Email: Jared.Kiess@bullivant.com ron.clark@bullivant.com UNITED STATES: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over OPT Delays ----------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey H. Steinberg, Esq., of Mintz, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that USCIS recently settled a class action lawsuit regarding lengthy delays in processing of Employment Authorization Document (EAD) applications for individuals in F-1 student status. The settlement is welcome news to F-1 students who have been delayed in their ability to begin work following graduation due to long delays at USCIS. Background A class action lawsuit, Li v. USCIS, filed in February 2021 against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been settled. The lawsuit alleged an impermissible delay in processing employment authorization document applications for post-graduate optional practical training (OPT) as well as STEM Extension OPT. Eighteen named F-1 students who had applied or planned to apply for employment authorization asserted that the delay in processing caused them and other similarly situated students irreparable harm. This harm included potentially being subject to removal from the U.S. when the grace period following their education program ended as well as losing job offers, income, health insurance, and opportunities to register for the H-1B lottery. Details of the USCIS Settlement On July 23, 2021, the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division issued a consent order, which outlines the terms of agreement between the parties. Key USCIS concessions agreed to in the settlement include: For applications for OPT and STEM extensions filed between October 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021, USCIS commits to processing within 120 days. Processing means that the application will be approved, denied or a Request for Evidence issued within 120 days of filing. The interim relief announced on February 26, 2021, continues for all cases filed between October 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021. This includes: A full 12 months of OPT irrespective of the requirement OPT be completed within 14 months of graduation. OPT will be granted for the full period recommended by the DSO, irrespective of the time of adjudication. If an EAD has been issued for less than these time periods, USCIS will issue a corrected EAD upon request. Rejected applications which were originally submitted on time can be resubmitted and will be processed as if received on the original date (the full period of OPT will be granted, but the original I-20 will be accepted without the requirement of a new I-20). Requests for Evidence will be issued instead of a denial for missing or deficient signatures. OPT applications can be submitted up to 120 days (instead of 90) before completion of the program until October 31, 2021. In addition to the 18 named plaintiffs, this settlement will offer relief to any similarly situated students, who are undoubtedly greatly relieved by this settlement. [GN] UNITED THERAPEUTICS: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- United Therapeutics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court granted the company's motion to transfer the class action suit intiated by MSP Recovery Claims, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On July 27, 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC (Plaintiffs) filed a Class Action Complaint against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint alleges that we violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act and various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations to a pulmonary arterial hypertension fund so that those donations would go towards copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by the company. Plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for the company's drugs. On April 6, 2021, the Court granted the company's motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Two members of the putative class, Humana Inc. and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, have informed the company that they may bring claims directly against it to recover alleged overpayments. United Therapeutics said, "We intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit." Silver Spring, Md.-based United Therapeutics Corporation develops and commercializes therapeutic products for patients with chronic and life-threatening diseases. The Company offers products primarily in three therapeutic areas, including cardiovascular, cancer, and infectious diseases. VALARIS LIMITED: Zhang Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------- Valaris Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed in the class action suit initiated by Xiaoyuan Zhang. On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Valaris shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of our executive officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. After the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the case was stayed in light of the Valaris plc bankruptcy filing. Lead plaintiff submitted a general unsecured claim in Valaris plc's chapter 11 case. On June 10, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court granted Valaris plc's motion to subordinate the claim to a class that was not entitled to receive any recovery in the bankruptcy. On June 16, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court also granted Valaris plc's motion to enforce the releases and injunction under its plan of reorganization and require lead plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit as to the remaining defendants. Accordingly, on July 8, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his claims with prejudice. Valaris Limited a leading provider of offshore contract drilling services to the international oil and gas industry. VALE SA: Plan for Distribution of Securities Suit Settlement OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: Vale S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15 Civ. 09539 (GHW), Consolidated with Case No. 16 Civ. 00658 (GHW) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan. The matter was brought before the Court by way of the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to determine whether the proposed Distribution Plan of the Net Settlement Fund created by the Settlement achieved in the Action should be approved. Judge Woods, having reviewed and considered all the materials and arguments submitted in support of the motion, finds that the notice of Lead Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation was given to all the Settlement Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort. He says, the form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the motion for approval of the proposed Plan of Allocation satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, as amended, and all other applicable law and rules; constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances; and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto. Accordingly, the Judge adopted the following: a. The administrative recommendations of the Court-approved Claims Administrator, JND Legal Administration (JND), to accept the Timely Eligible Claims stated in Exhibit E to the Segura Declaration and the Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims stated in Exhibit F to the Segura Declaration; and b. The Claims Administrator's administrative recommendations to reject the Rejected Claims, as stated in Exhibit G to the Segura Declaration, including the Disputed Claims discussed in paragraph 32 of the Segura Declaration and Exhibit D to the Segura Declaration. JND is directed to conduct the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, after deducting all payments previously allowed and the payments approved by the Order, and after deducting the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, while maintaining a 5% reserve from the Net Settlement Fund to address any tax liability or claims administration-related contingencies that may arise. Specifically, as stated in paragraph 45(a) of the Segura Declaration: (1) JND will calculate award amounts for all Authorized Claimants as if the entire Net Settlement Fund were to be distributed now. In accordance with the Court-approved Plan of Allocation, JND will calculate each Authorized Claimant's pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based on the amount of the Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim in comparison to the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants; (2) JND will then, in accordance with the terms of the Court-approved Plan of Allocation, eliminate from the Initial Distribution any Authorized Claimant whose total pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund is less than $10. These Claimants will not receive any payment from the Net Settlement Fund and will be so notified by JND; (3) After eliminating Claimants who would have received less than $10, JND will recalculate the pro rata shares of the Net Settlement Fund for Authorized Claimants who would have received $10 or more based on the amount of the Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim in comparison to the total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants who would have received $10 or more. This pro rata share is the Authorized Claimant's Distribution Amount; (4) Authorized Claimants whose Distribution Amount calculates to less than $200 will be paid their full Distribution Amount in the Initial Distribution (Claims Paid in Full). These Authorized Claimants will receive no additional funds in subsequent distributions; (5) 95% of the remaining balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to Authorized Claimants whose Distribution Amount calculates to $200 or more. The remaining 5% of the Net Settlement Fund will be held in the Reserve to address any tax liability or claims administration-related contingencies that may arise following the Initial Distribution. To the extent the Reserve is not depleted, the remainder will be distributed in the Second Distribution described in the Order. In order to encourage Authorized Claimants to cash their checks promptly, all distribution checks will bear the following notation: "CASH PROMPTLY. VOID AND SUBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION IF NOT CASHED BY [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE]." The Lead Counsel and JND are authorized to take appropriate action to locate and contact Authorized Claimants who have not cashed their checks within said time as detailed in paragraph 45(b) footnote 9 of the Segura Declaration. Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Initial Distribution checks within the time allotted or on the conditions stated in paragraph 45(b) footnote 9 of the Segura Declaration will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement, and the funds allocated to these stale-dated checks will be available to be distributed to other Authorized Claimants in the Second Distribution. Similarly, Authorized Claimants who do not cash their distribution checks in the Second Distribution or in subsequent distributions, should such distributions occur, within the time allotted or on the conditions stated in paragraph 45(b) footnote 9 of the Segura Declaration will irrevocably forfeit any further recovery from the Net Settlement Fund. After JND has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants cash their Initial Distribution checks (provided in paragraph 45(b) footnote 9 of the Segura Declaration). but not earlier than seven months after the Initial Distribution, JND will, after consulting with the Lead Counsel, conduct the Second Distribution, in which any amount remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the Initial Distribution, will be distributed to all Authorized Claimants in the Initial Distribution (other than Claims Paid in Full) who cashed their Initial Distribution check and are entitled to receive at least $10 from the Second Distribution based on their pro rata share of the remaining funds. Additional distributions, after deduction of costs and expenses as described and subject to the same conditions, may occur thereafter in six-month intervals until the Lead Counsel, in consultation with JND, determines that further distribution is not cost-effective. When the Lead Counsel, in consultation with JND, determines that further distribution of the funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is not cost-effective, if sufficient funds remain to warrant the processing of Claims received after March 12, 2021, those Claims will be processed, and any otherwise valid Claims received after March 12, 2021, as well as any earlier-received Claims for which an adjustment was received after March 12, 2021, which resulted in an increased Recognized Claim amount, will be paid in accordance with the Order. If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund after payment of these late or late-adjusted Claims, the remaining balance of the Net Settlement Fund, after payment of any unpaid fees or expenses incurred in administering the Net Settlement Fund and after the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, will be contributed to the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). No new Claims may be accepted after March 12, 2021, and no further adjustments to Claims received on or before March 12, 2021, that would result in an increased Recognized Claim amount may be made for any reason after March 12, 2021, subject to the following exception. If Claims are received or modified after March 12, 2021, that would have been eligible for payment or additional payment under the Court-approved Plan of Allocation if timely received, then, at the time that the Lead Counsel, in consultation with JND, determines a distribution is not cost-effective, and after payment of any unpaid fees or expenses incurred in connection with administering the Net Settlement Fund and after deducting the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, these Claimants, at the discretion of the Lead Counsel, may be paid their distribution amounts or additional distribution amounts on a pro rata basis that would bring them into parity with other Authorized Claimants who have cashed all their prior distribution checks to the extent possible. All of JND's fees and expenses incurred in the administration of the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in connection with the Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund as stated in the invoices attached as Exhibit H to the Segura Declaration are approved, and Lead Counsel is directed to pay the outstanding balance of $133,797.42 out of the Settlement Fund to JND. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, JND may destroy the paper copies of the Claims and all supporting documentation one year after the Initial Distribution, and one year after all funds have been distributed may destroy electronic copies of the same. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications concerning the administration of the Settlement, and any other and further relief that the Court deems appropriate. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtwr5h9j from Leagle.com. VALEANT PHARMA: Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq., Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq, and Gregory A. Nylen, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, discussed court rulings in the law firm's Class Action Litigation Newsletter - Summer 2021: Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuit. Highlights from this issue include: Supreme Court rules that class members who did not suffer concrete harm do not have Article III standing to sue for violation of a federal statute. Supreme Court holds that generic nature of a misstatement is important evidence to show no price impact at the class certification stage, but that defendant bears the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact. District court in the First Circuit (D. Mass.) grants motion to strike nationwide class allegations at the pleading stage. Second Circuit holds that a plaintiff cannot establish injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing where personally identifiable information was inadvertently disclosed and not yet misused by any third party. Third Circuit follows majority rule that American Pipe tolling applies to plaintiffs who file individual suits before a ruling on class certification. Fourth Circuit finds ERISA plaintiff established Article III standing and reverses denial of class certification. District court in Fifth Circuit (N.D. Tex.) denies class certification because individual issues predominate in case alleging fraud and misrepresentation. Divided Sixth Circuit panel affirms dismissal of proposed insurance coverage class action. Seventh Circuit affirms summary judgment for defendant in consumer class action, finding no reasonable consumer would be materially misled by alleged misrepresentations. Eighth Circuit reverses class certification, holding that plaintiff's expert's computer technology and algorithm cannot overcome individualized inquiry into economic loss. Ninth Circuit reverses approval of class action settlement, holding that under revised Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii), a district court must review a proposed class settlement for unfair collusion. D.C. district court permits tolling of putative class members' claims under American Pipe because they are based on the same acts and will be proven by the same evidence as prior claims. Third Circuit Aly v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc, No. 19-3326, 2021 WL 2448108 (3d Cir. June 16, 2021) Third Circuit follows majority rule that American Pipe tolling applies to plaintiffs who file individual suits prior to a ruling on class certification. Plaintiffs filed a putative securities class action against a pharmaceutical company. Prior to a ruling on class certification, certain putative class members filed individual lawsuits. The district court dismissed the individual complaints as untimely under the two-year statute of limitations and found that American Pipe tolling did not apply to individual complaints filed before a ruling on class certification. The Third Circuit reversed. The court recognized that while the U.S. Supreme Court had not addressed the issue, the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits had held that American Pipe tolls the limitations period for individual claims filed both before and after the certification stage. Only the Sixth Circuit held otherwise, although that circuit had called that conclusion into question. The Third Circuit adopted the majority rule: "American Pipe makes clear that the filing of a class action is the operative event that tolls the limitations period, and that once the period is tolled, it remains tolled for all putative members until they are no longer part of the class. The Court has not held that anything further, such as a certification denial, is required to benefit from tolling. Like the majority of our sister circuits, we see no reason not to take the Supreme Court's words at face value." The panel found that the rationale behind American Pipe was served by the ruling. While the statute of limitations is intended to prevent the "surprise" revival of old claims, that was not an issue where defendants "were undisputedly aware of the substantive claims at issue for more than two years before the Individual Complaint was filed." Also, denying tolling would serve "no compelling purpose" because it would "lock" putative members into the class until after certification. The court concluded it made sense to allow individuals "to promptly file their individual actions, rather than indefinitely delay[ing] the resolution of those claims for no good reason." The panel rejected defendants' arguments that post-American Pipe Supreme Court jurisprudence compelled a different result. While recognizing that "the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence tends to underscore the importance of judicial economy," "we cannot construe the doctrine in a way that would undermine its primary purpose -- to protect the individual rights of putative members." Finally, the panel found that the district court's decision was counterintuitive, in that individuals who filed suit earlier would be time-barred but those who filed after a class certification decision would not be. Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, 246 N.J. 157 (2021) New Jersey Supreme Court reverses motion to dismiss class action allegations, relying on lenient standard of review. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in New Jersey state court seeking statutory damages from retailers, based on willful noncompliance with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing customers' credit card or debit card expiration dates on their receipts. Defendants moved to dismiss the class allegations, and the trial court granted the motion, finding: (1) plaintiffs failed to allege numerosity because they did not specify how many members were in the class; (2) predominance was not adequately alleged because some class members may have suffered actual damages and liability would therefore have to be determined on a case-by-case basis; and (3) superiority was not adequately alleged because FACTA's statutory award sufficiently incentivized plaintiffs to bring suit individually. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. The New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized the procedural posture of the case and the lenient standard of review involved: on a motion to dismiss, a reviewing court must examine "the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint," giving the plaintiff the benefit of "every reasonable inference of fact," searching the complaint thoroughly "and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if necessary." Under that standard, the Court ruled that plaintiffs adequately pled the class action elements. Plaintiffs adequately pled numerosity by stating that "there are, at a minimum, thousands" of members of the class. The Court rejected the lower courts' conclusion that numerosity must be pled with specificity. Plaintiffs also adequately pled predominance because they alleged that defendants' non-compliance was "consistent" and "the common nucleus of operative facts is, as plaintiffs pled, whether defendants programmed their equipment to print the expiration dates of customers' credit/debit cards on receipts; the answer to that question will apply to all class members." Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege superiority because plaintiffs did not explain why statutory damages, which could be recovered in small claims court, were an inadequate means to redress any FACTA violation. The Court credited plaintiffs' allegations that "a class action is superior because individual statutory damages will be relatively small" and "even if individual litigation were brought, the class action is still superior because individual claims would ‘present the potential for varying, inconsistent or contradictory judgments.'" In so holding, the Court distinguished an earlier decision finding that small claims court was a superior forum for adjudicating TCPA claims, finding that it is more difficult to establish a FACTA claim than a TCPA claim. The Court made clear that "we are not certifying the class." Rather, the Court remanded "the matter for the parties to conduct discovery related to class action certification." Fourth Circuit Peters v. Aetna Inc., No. 19-2085, 2021 WL 2448108 (4th Cir. June 22, 2021) Fourth Circuit finds ERISA plaintiff established Article III standing and reverses denial of class certification. Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by bundling an administrative fee into the rates for health benefits. The district court denied class certification on commonality and ascertainability grounds, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that there was a class of participants who actually were harmed, and that some participants actually benefit from the challenged conduct. The Fourth Circuit reversed. The panel first addressed plaintiff's Article III standing, concluding that plaintiff adequately demonstrated a financial injury - i.e., plaintiff paid more on individual claims than she otherwise would have but for the challenged conduct - to establish standing under her restitution claim. But even if she could not show such an injury, plaintiff still had standing to seek a surcharge, disgorgement, and declaratory and injunctive relief. As to class certification, the panel found that the "district court analyzed ascertainability and commonality too rigidly." Specifically, the district court based its ascertainability conclusion on a determination that plaintiff lacked any financial injury. Yet the district court ignored the viability of plaintiff's other remedies for surcharge, disgorgement, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Thus, the panel instructed the district court to "reexamine the ascertainability prong" based on the totality of plaintiff's claimed remedies. Similarly, as to commonality, the panel found that the district court erroneously ignored the totality of plaintiff's claims. Also, the panel observed that the common issues of fact as to defendant's conduct "may be sufficient to meet the commonality requirement." State ex rel. Health Care Alliance, Inc. v. O'Briant, No. 20-1029, 2021 WL 2432126 (W. Va. June 15, 2021) West Virginia Supreme Court rejects pre-certification discovery of identities of putative class members. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendants in West Virginia state court, alleging they sent collection letters in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. In pre-certification discovery, plaintiff sought the identities of all West Virginia individuals to whom defendants sent similar collection letters, as well as the name of the original creditor, account number, amount allegedly owed, and current balance. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion to compel that information, reasoning that it "goes towards proving at the certification stage common questions of fact or law, typical claims or common defenses, i.e., 'commonality' and 'typicality.'" The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the order compelling discovery. The Court recognized the distinction, as noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978), between attempts to seek the identification of class members for purposes of class notice as opposed to other purposes. Because the request here was made pre-certification, it was not for purposes of serving class notice. The Court then analyzed whether the request sought information relevant to the class certification requirements and concluded it did not. The identity of class members was not relevant to the commonality element of the class certification test because the common issues identified in the complaint involved the conduct of defendants, not the identities or addresses of potential class members. Nor was that information relevant to the predominance analysis because plaintiff sought to certify a class of all individuals who received a letter similar to plaintiff, not "potential class members treated at a particular facility or who lived in a particular city or town," for whom names and addresses would be relevant. Finally, while the number of individuals who received a similar letter would be relevant to the numerosity element, the identities and details regarding the debts of those individuals were not relevant to numerosity. Accordingly, the Court concluded "that the circuit court clearly erred and exceeded its legitimate powers in compelling [defendants] to disclose at this pre-certification stage names and addresses of non-litigant, third-party individuals to whom debt collection letters were sent, dates of letters sent by [defendants], names of the original creditors, the original creditors' account or reference numbers, the amount owed or allegedly owed and the current balance owed." Fifth Circuit Miller v. Grand Canyon Univ., Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00652-P, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94800 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 2021) District court denies class certification in putative fraud and RICO class action against online university because individualized issues overwhelmed the commonality and typicality inquiries under Rule 23(a) or predominance and superiority inquiries under Rule 23(b)(3). An online graduate student and Texas resident, Miller, sued Grand Canyon University (GCU), claiming that GCU misled its students into believing that its graduate programs were accredited in each state where its students reside. On behalf of a putative class of "[a]ll Grand Canyon University students who have been enrolled in an online professional graduate degree or certificate program that is not accredited in the state where they are employed or, if not employed, where they reside," Miller asserted claims for fraudulent omission, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and for violation of the federal RICO act, the Arizona RICO Act, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. Miller filed a motion to certify the class, and the district court denied the motion. Considering Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, the district court concluded that Miller had failed to establish commonality or typicality. As for commonality, the court recognized that while Miller had identified common questions that would apply to the entire putative class, she had failed to show that the class action would generate "common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation," as required by the Supreme Court's Dukes decision. The district court explained that "determining whether GCU committed fraud or misrepresentation as to Miller does not establish that GCU did so vis-à-vis every putative class member." Further, the questions that Miller presented could not be answered from a single source. As for typicality, the court explained that the same analysis applied. Miller's fraud claims were unique to her, and she had not established any uniform misrepresentations to the putative class as a whole. So, issues of reliance and injury would differ from person to person. Miller's unique facts also raised defenses that would apply to her alone. In that same vein, the court found that Miller failed to carry her burden of proving predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3). Emphasizing that "a fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be an issue," the court struggled to envision "what a trial would look like." The court reasoned, "[v]ariations as to the degree of reliance by prospective students on statements that may or may not have been made makes class certification improper." Moreover, "[t]he varied and individualized levels of reliance, derived from dynamic conversations, make this case improper for class certification due to the individual issues relating to reliance." Finally, the court ruled that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) would be denied because the proper remedy for any violation was money damages, not prospective injunctive relief. [GN] WALMART INC: Barton Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew L. Barton, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 2021CH03273 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 13, 2021). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04329 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Robert E. Earles, Esq. COOLEY LLP 444 W Lake Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 881-6500 Email: rearles@cooley.com WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over Inspection Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Diya Patel, writing for Benzinga, reports that Wells Fargo & Co. has been hit with a class-action lawsuit accusing them of charging unnecessary inspection fees in a New Jersey District Court. This lawsuit comes 13 years after another class-action suit that accused Wells Fargo of the same racketeering activities in Iowa. What Happened: In a complaint filed on August 5th, Wells Fargo was made aware of official class action litigation against them. Now, they must respond to the claims that they charged mortgage borrowers millions in unnecessary property inspection fees to increase profits. The suit asserts that when mortgage owners were charged, inspection fees were "hidden" and labeled as "other charges" to avoid detection by mortgage owners. The suit is led by a mortgage owner named Jane Hart. Hart says that she and other mortgage borrowers were subject to undue "difficult financial straits, putting their homes in jeopardy and, in some instances, resulting in bankruptcy," at the hands of Wells Fargo. There is not yet a compensation number attached to the suit. However, for reference, in 2008, Wells Fargo was served with a similar suit that settled for a whopping $26 million dollars. The case, Young v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., also accused Wells Fargo of making borrowers pay for unnecessary inspections. Why It's Important: If the complaint is approved by the court, and the case eventually goes to trial, this will be another blow to Wells Fargo's already shaky reputation. The bank has become synonymous with scandal. Just in the past 5 years, Wells Fargo has paid fines of $185 million for the infamous fake accounts scandal, a $1 billion settlement for charging loans without consent, and $5.4 million to a fraud whistleblower: to name a few. To police Wells Fargo's scandals, the Federal Reserve imposed a cap on the company's assets in 2018. As a result, the company is restricted in adding customers and loans. Since then, the company has dropped $220 billion in stock value. Still, Wells Fargo remains one of the largest American home loan servicers. But to escape this suit, the company will have to beat breach-of-contract, state-law consumer protection, and federal racketeering claims. [GN] WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement in Merger Related Suits Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that following the final fairness hearing, the court in the In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation,' C.A. No. 2018-0132-KSJM, finally approved the settlement. The Company was named as a defendant in two consolidated actions arising out of the 2016 'merger of equals' between Towers Watson and Willis, consisting of a consolidated shareholder class action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA (the 'Federal Action'), and a consolidated putative shareholder class action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned 'In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation,' C.A. No. 2018-0132-KSJM (the 'Delaware Action'). The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants omitted material information from the proxy disclosures relating to the Merger, including with respect to potential conflicts of interest, and, as a result, that Towers Watson's stockholders approved the Merger based on inadequate information. Based on these allegations, among others, the complaint in the Federal Action asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the complaint in the Delaware Action asserts claims under Delaware state law for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On or about November 19, 2020, the parties to the Federal Action and the Delaware Action reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Federal Action and the Delaware Action for $75 million and $15 million, respectively. The Company agreed to the settlement and the payment of the settlement amounts to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. Further, in reaching the settlement, the parties understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or any of the other defendants in either the Federal Action or the Delaware Action. The Company and the other defendants expressly deny any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Federal Action and the Delaware Action. On January 15, 2021, the parties to the Federal Action and the Delaware Action signed formal stipulations of settlement, which memorialized the terms of the agreement in principle, and which the plaintiffs in the Federal Action and the Delaware Action then filed with each of the respective courts. Also on January 15, 2021, the plaintiff in the Federal Action filed a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement. On January 21, 2021 the court in the Federal Action preliminarily approved the settlement, approved the form of notice to be disseminated to class members, and scheduled a final fairness hearing on the settlement for May 21, 2021. On May 21, 2021, following the final fairness hearing, the court in the Federal Action finally approved the settlement. On January 25, 2021 the court in the Delaware Action approved the form of notice to be disseminated to class members and scheduled a final fairness hearing on the settlement for May 25, 2021. On May 25, 2021, following the final fairness hearing, the court in the Delaware Action finally approved the settlement. The Company made the $90 million aggregate settlement payment in escrow in February 2021. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan design, and administrative services for traditional pension and retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and administration services for health and group benefit programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London, England. WYNN RESORTS: Nevada Court Pares Down Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on July 28, 2021, Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a resort and casino operator (the "Company") and its current and former officers alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Ferris v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., No. 18-CV-00479 (D. Nev. July 28, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made material misstatements and omissions concerning allegations that its CEO engaged in sexual misconduct. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims relating to alleged misstatements made directly in response to a newspaper article and lawsuit concerning the CEO's alleged misconduct, but granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the alleged misstatements that concerned the Company's code of conduct, compliance with laws and regulations, and corporate culture. In January 2018, after a newspaper published an article detailing the CEO's pattern of sexual misconduct, the price of the Company's stock dropped precipitously. The Company and the CEO made several statements denying the allegations in the article and other allegations of misconduct from a lawsuit brought by the CEO's ex-wife. Shortly thereafter, two women filed police reports accusing the CEO of sexually assaulting them in the 1970s. The CEO resigned in February 2018, days before news of the police reports became public. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company made seven categories of misstatements relating to its CEO's alleged misconduct: (1) responses to the article that denied the misconduct or downplayed the Company's knowledge of the CEO's misconduct, (2) responses denying the allegations made in a lawsuit brought by the CEO's ex-wife, (3) statements regarding the Company's code of conduct, (4) statements regarding the Company's full compliance with all applicable laws, (5) statements about regulatory risks, (6) statements about the CEO's skills and possible departure, and (7) statements regarding corporate culture. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiffs had failed to allege falsity of the statements at issue. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. First, the Court denied the Company's motion as to the statements made in response to the newspaper article because it found the Company's statements would give a reasonable investor the "impression that the allegations are false and fabricated." The Court emphasized that the Company had received multiple complaints about the CEO's sexual misconduct by the time the article was published and that various Company executives were aware of the complaints. Similarly, the Court held that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the Company's statements in response to the lawsuit brought by the CEO's ex-wife were materially misleading. Specifically, the Court held that the Company's statements would have given a reasonable investor the impression that the Company denied all allegations concerning the CEO's "serious misconduct," when, in fact, the Company had already received multiple complaints about the CEO's misconduct. Second, the Court granted the motion to dismiss claims regarding the remaining categories of misstatements. With respect to the statements in the Company's code of conduct, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the code of conduct was misleading because the Company did not apply its standards to the CEO's behavior. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims as to these statements because they were aspirational in nature, and even if they were affirmative misrepresentations, they could not be material. The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' claims as to the Company's statements regarding its compliance with all applicable laws because the challenged statements were made in the context of a specific litigation and "a reasonable person reading the statement[s] fairly and in context" would not find the statements misleading. Similarly, the Court rejected plaintiffs' claims with respect to the Company's statements regarding regulatory and compliance risks because the omission of the CEO's alleged pattern of misconduct did not render misleading statements that "merely describe[d] possible measures regulators could take if they determine that the Company violated a regulation." With respect to the alleged misstatements regarding the CEO's unique skills and possible departure, the Court agreed with the Company that the "statements only describe[d] [the CEO]'s value and possible departure in a general manner and did not create a duty to disclose his alleged misconduct." Finally, the Court agreed with the Company that the challenged statements regarding company culture, which focused on topics like diversity and the CEO's comfort with the pace of company growth, were inactionable puffery. [GN] XEROX CORP: Time to Perfect Appeal in Ribbe Extended to Sept. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that plaintiff's time to perfect the appeal of the December 14, 2020 dismissal order in Ribbe v. Jacobson, et al., has been extended to September 13, 2021. On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox, current Board members Joseph J. Echevarria, Cheryl Gordon Krongard, Keith Cozza, Giovanni G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas Graziano, and A. Scott Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey Jacobson, William Curt Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince, Ann N. Reese, Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory Q. Brown, and Sara Martinez Tucker. Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on December 6, 2018 ("Ribbe I"). The new complaint included putative derivative claims on behalf of Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the then members of the Xerox Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle shareholder actions filed in 2018 in the same court against Xerox, its then directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation in connection with a proposed transaction announced in January 2018 to combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox (the "Fuji Transaction"), including a consolidated putative class action, In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Litigation ("XCCSL"), and actions filed by Darwin Deason, Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., et al. and Deason v. Xerox Corporation, et al., against the same defendants as well as, in the first Deason action, former Xerox Chief Executive Officer Ursula M. Burns (the "Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits"). Plaintiff alleged that the settlements ceded control of the Board and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction. Plaintiff also alleged that the current Board members breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January 14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements. The new complaint further included direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated entities (the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which plaintiff alleged perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr. Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders. Among other things, plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees; and other further relief as the Court may deem proper. Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019. On June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On July 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work by, the committee of the Board established to investigate plaintiff's shareholder demand. On July 18, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and adjourned sine die the deadline by which defendants must file any motions to dismiss the complaint. On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint ("FAC"). The FAC includes many of plaintiff's original allegations regarding the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well as additional allegations, including, among others, that the members of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated plaintiff's demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to pursue the claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement announced in November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by Xerox of its interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of Fujifilm's breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox (the "FX Sale Transaction"), was unfavorable to Xerox; and allegations about a potential acquisition by Xerox of HP similar to those in the Miami Firefighters derivative action described below. In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC adds as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River Limited Partnership (the "Icahn defendants") and asserts claims against those defendants and the Board similar to those in Miami Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants' purchases of HP stock allegedly with knowledge of material nonpublic information concerning Xerox's potential acquisition of HP. In addition to the relief sought in Ribbe's prior complaint, the FAC seeks relief similar to that sought in Miami Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants' alleged purchases of HP stock. On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later asserted by Ribbe. At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the Court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice. On March 6, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action renewed its motion. On July 23, 2020, after hearing oral argument, the Court issued an order denying the motion and setting certain case deadlines. Discovery commenced. On August 7, 2020, Xerox, the director defendants, and the Icahn defendants filed separate motions to dismiss. On October 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking, among other relief, joinder of Xerox Holdings Corporation as a nominal defendant. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and plaintiff's cross-motion was completed on October 16, 2020. On December 14, 2020, following oral argument, the Court issued a decision and order denying plaintiff's cross-motion and granting defendants' motions, dismissing the action in its entirety as to all defendants. Dismissal as to the Icahn defendants was conditioned on the filing of an affidavit, which the Icahn defendants filed on December 16, 2020, indicating whether defendant Icahn gained a profit or incurred a loss on purchases of HP stock during the relevant time period. On January 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the December 14, 2020 dismissal order to the Appellate Division, First Department. Upon his application to the Appellate Division, plaintiff's time to perfect the appeal of the December 14, 2020 dismissal order has been extended to September 13, 2021. On April 7, 2021, plaintiff filed in the previously dismissed Ribbe I and XCCSL actions a motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees of $1.5 and a service award of $10 thousand for benefits he allegedly obtained for Xerox and its stockholders. On June 4, 2021, the Court granted plaintiff's fee application, in part, and awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees in the amount of $125 thousand in the dismissed actions. The Court denied plaintiff's request for a service award. Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this litigation. Xerox said, "Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in determination, judgment, or settlement occurs." Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace services, including managed print services; digitization services; and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization and communication software, and content management. Xerox Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut. XPO LOGISTICS: Dismissal of Labul Class Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., is pending. On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the company and some of its current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged material misstatements and omissions in our public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund filed a consolidated class action complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the Court dismissed the consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint against us and a current executive. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020. On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the first amended consolidated class action complaint with prejudice and closed the case. On April 29, 2021, the Pension Funds filed a notice of appeal, and the appellate process is ongoing. XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom, Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut. XPO LOGISTICS: Trial in Alvarez, Arrellano Suits Set for September ------------------------------------------------------------------ XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that trial in Alvarez v. XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and Arrellano v. XPO Port Services, Inc., are set for September 2021. Certain of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are defendants in class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers in California who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these cases, the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. In two related cases pending in Federal District Court in Los Angeles, Alvarez v. XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and Arrellano v. XPO Port Services, Inc., the Court has certified classes beginning in April 2016 and March 2013, respectively. Plaintiffs allege that defendants exercised an impermissible degree of control over plaintiffs' operations through the terms of the parties' contracts and defendants' policies, including enforcement of requirements imposed on motor carriers by state and federal law. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally include claims that, should the contract carriers be determined to be employees, they would be entitled to reimbursement for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for missed meal and rest periods, reimbursement of certain of the contract carriers' business expenses (including fuel and insurance related costs), Labor Code penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys' fees and costs associated with bringing the action. Defendants continue to mount a vigorous defense on the merits of plaintiffs' claims, including as to the threshold issue of employment classification. Both cases are scheduled for trial in September 2021; however, this date may be impacted or significantly delayed by the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Court operations, including the scheduling of jury trials. XPO said, "We anticipate further legal rulings from the Court at or before trial that may substantially affect the scope of the claims asserted. As a result, we are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a result of these claims." XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom, Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut. ZYMERGEN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 4 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ:ZY) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: Apr. 20, 2021 - Aug. 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 4, 2021 Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ZY Contact An Attorney Now:ZY@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Zymergen Inc. (ZY) Securities Class Action: The case arises from Zymergen's misrepresentations in its Registration Statement for its Apr. 23, 2021 IPO concerning Hyaline, the Company's primary product that remains in the customer qualification stage. Specifically, the Registration Statement emphasized Hyaline's total addressable market ("TAM"), but omitted that: (1) during the qualification process, key customers had encountered technical issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with customers' processes; (2) Zymergen lacked visibility into the qualification process; (3) the Company had overestimated demand for its products; and (4) the Company's product delivery timeline would be delayed, which in turn would prolong revenue generation. These false statements and omissions allowed the Company to sell more than 18.5 million shares of common stock at a price of $31.00 per share, raising $530.1 million. But on Aug. 3, 2021, Zymergen announced it became aware of "issues" with its commercial product pipeline impacting the Company's delivery timeline and revenue projections. Zymergen disclosed that it did not expect any product revenues in 2021 and that 2022 revenues would be immaterial. The Company blamed the commercial ramp delay on several key target customers being unable to use Hyaline in their manufacturing processes and on a smaller TAM than previously disclosed. In addition, Zymergen's CEO (Josh Hoffman) abruptly left the Company. This news sent the price of Zymergen shares crashing down $26.58 on Aug. 4, 2021, wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars in shareholder value. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Zymergen lied about Hyaline's business prospects," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Zymergen and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Zymergen should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email ZY@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] ZYMERGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ: ZY) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Zymergen's April 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 4, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased Zymergen securities during the Class Period 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 Zymergen class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2141.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 October 4, 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 featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) during the qualification process for Hyaline, key customers had encountered technical issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with customers' processes; (2) though the qualification process was critical to achieving market acceptance for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into the qualification process; (3) as a result, Zymergen overestimated demand for its products; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Zymergen's product delivery timeline was reasonably likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Zymergen'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 Zymergen class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2141.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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ZYNGA INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in I.C. Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, I.C., ET AL., Plaintiffs v. ZYNGA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01539-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Zynga's motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss for lack of standing with leave to amend. The case arises from the September 2019 data breach of Defendant Zynga's customer database containing personal identifying information. Prior to consolidation of the four individual actions comprising this case, Zynga had filed motions to compel arbitration, which the Court denied without prejudice. The Court granted Zynga leave to conduct discovery as to identification of the Plaintiffs' Zynga accounts in order to ascertain the applicable terms of service. On March 12, 2021, Plaintiffs I.C., Amy Gitre, Carol Johnson, Lisa Thomas, Joseph Martinez IV, Daniel Petro, and Christopher Rosiak filed a consolidated class action complaint, asserting 27 causes of action in connection with the data breach. On April 27, 2021, Zynga renewed its motion to compel arbitration against Plaintiffs Gitre, Thomas, and Martinez. It also moved to dismiss the action as to remaining Plaintiffs I.C., Johnson, Petro, and Rosiak for lack of Article III standing and for failure to state a claim. Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted on the motion, and for the reasons stated on the record at the July 27, 2021 hearing, Judge Rogers grants the motion to compel arbitration and grants the motion to dismiss for lack of standing with leave to amend. With respect to the motion to compel arbitration, Judge Rogers finds that Plaintiffs Gitre, Thomas, and Martinez entered into an arbitration agreement with Zynga when they accepted the 2019 Terms of Service. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' position, the failure to include a "Reject" button does not preclude formation of the agreement. Courts routinely uphold clickwrap agreements, such as the ones presented to the Plaintiffs in the case, which require website users "to click on an 'I agree' button after being presented with a list of terms and conditions of use." So long as the user has access to the terms and conditions, "even if the terms are not presented on the same page as the acceptance button," clickwrap agreements have been consistently used to compel arbitration. Further, Judge Rogers finds that the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. She says that the "Changes to Section 15 Agreement to Arbitrate and Class Action Waiver" subsection refers to "the court" does not change the conclusion. The purported conflict is "artificial" because it does not contradict "the agreement's unambiguous statement identifying arbitrable claims and arguments." Moreover, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not raise a valid unconscionability challenge specifically directed at the delegation clause. Thus, she does not address the Plaintiffs' McGill and unconscionability challenges concerning the entire arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration as to Plaintiffs Gitre, Thomas, and Martinez is granted. With respect to the motion to dismiss, Judge Rogers finds that, as currently pled, the complaint fails to establish a sufficiently concrete injury-in-fact as required for Article III standing. Specifically, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged an invasion of privacy or a risk of future harm based on the information allegedly stolen in the breach. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted for lack of Article III standing with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint (and provide the Court with an accompanying redline) no later than Aug. 27, 2021. Zynga will respond to the filing no later than Sept. 20, 2021. Should the amended complaint survive an Article III standing challenge, Zynga will be permitted to re-assert its challenge to the merits. However, Zynga may not assert any grounds which could have been asserted in the instant motion. The Order terminates Docket Numbers 71 and 72. A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/f3xk37pn from Leagle.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 ***