/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210921.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 183 Headlines 360 DIGITECH: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action ACT INC: Bais Yaakov Can't Pursue TCPA Class Action, Court Rules AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California ALABAMA: Hurst Loses Class Certification Bid ALLEN, TX: Parents File Class Action v. ISD Over COVID-19 Measures ALLSTATE CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in Insurance Class Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Class Action Alleges Alexa Violates Illinois' BIPA AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Chaves Suit Over Unlawful Sales Tax Charges AMERICAN CAMPUS: Certification of Class in Berry Upheld as Modified AMERICSOURCEBERGEN: Board Accepts Opioid Suit Against Pharma Cos. ANNOVIS BIO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Plaintiffs Must File Bid to Amend by Sept. 24 APPLE INC: Class Action Mulled Over Cracked M1 MacBook Screens APPLE INC: Class Action Over Siri Voice Assistant Can Proceed APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over App That Led to Cryptocurrency Theft APPLE INC: Judge Ordered to Implement App Store Payment Changes ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Banuelos Suit Removed to C.D. California ATLANTA ALLERGY: Alleged Data Breach Class Action Pending AUTOLOTTO INC: Burstein Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme BANKERS LIFE: Misclassifies Sales Representatives, Emory Claims BANNER BANK: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Granted in Bolding BAUSCH HEALTH: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $300 Million BERLIN SKIN: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOB DEAN: Nursing Home Residents File Class Action Lawsuit BOSTON BEER: Robbins Geller Reminds of November 15 Deadline BOSTON BEER: Thornton Law Reminds of November 15 Deadline BOUGHTMILK.COM: Settlement Reached in Price Fixing Class Action BRAD LITTLE: Veenstra Files Suit in D. Idaho BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: FLSA Collective Action Gets Conditional Status BUTTERBALL LLC: Federal Judge Tossed Poultry Workers' Labor Suit C PEPPER: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Filling Set for May 3, 2022 CANADA: Faces Equitas Society Suit Over Unfair Pension Reforms CHICAGO, IL: Stop-and-Frisk Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status CLARK HILL: Matthew Marshall Secures Summary Judgment in Suit CLEAR CUT: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Nisbett Alleges COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $95MM COLLECTABLE SPORTS: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Alleges COLORADO: Faces Medicaid Child Mental Health Care Class Action CORVIAS GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Page Class Suit CRST INT'L: Markson Suit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Tarrify Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Hechler Suit Over Drop in Share Price DISCOUNT POWER: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut EAST COAST MOVING: Faces Douglas Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages ENHANCED RECOVERY: Snyder Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters FABFITFUN INC: Settles Suit for $625K for Alleged Security Failures FARMERS GROUP: Faces Stallone Suit Over Alleged Data Breach FCA US: Bledsoe Seeks Certification of Class Action FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Dodge Hood Scoop Tossed FILLMORE AND 5TH: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California FIVE9 INC: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Lawrence Suit Alleges FRUIT FUSION: State Automobile Files Suit in S.D. Illinois GENERAC POWER: Zimmer Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Diaz Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 27, 2022 GHRAY AREA: Faces Devivo Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls GOHEALTH LLC: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Jordan Says GOLD COAST: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOOD SAMARITAN: Wins Summary Judgment in Frank Malpractice Suit GOOGLE LLC: Ill. Federal Court Affirms Biometric Class Action Stay GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Claims in Privacy Class Suit GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Barasch Trust Putative Class Suit Underway GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Class Suit Underway in New York GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Kinnie Ma Class Suit GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca and Drew Putative Class Suit Underway GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Ortiz Class Action Ongoing in New York GRAND GIFTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Alleges GRUBHUB INC: Illinois District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Sept. 27 Oral Argument on Appeal of Suit Dismissal HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation Stayed HALIFAX INVESTMENT: Dec. 10 Deadline Set to Sign Up Class Members HEALTHEXTRAS INC: Court Tosses Insurance Class Suit for 2nd Time HILL ENTERPRISE: Faces Espinal Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y. HOME DEPOT: Faces Carson Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages HOME DEPOT: Hearing for Class Cert. Bid Continued to Feb. 17, 2022 HOMEADVISOR INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 5, 2022 HONEST COMPANY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 15 Deadline HONEST COMPANY: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline HP INC: Investors Strike Out in Proposed Suit Over Printing Unit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Battery Systems J-M MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 1 JACOBS & CUSHMAN: Food Bank Leader Leaves Amid Class Action JIM'S TOWING: Campbell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pedron Sues Over Defective Sunscreen Products JORGE HADDOCK: Must Respond to Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 28 KAMAYA ELECTRIC: Settlement Hearings in Linear Resistors Suit Set KEESLER FEDERAL: Court Amends Case Management Schedule in Lloyd KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dansky Sues Over Defective CPAP Devices KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Scheibel Files Suit in D. Kansas KROGER CO: Ct. Amends June 18, 2021 Scheduling Order in Solano LANNETT CO: Class Certification Bid in Pennsylvania Suit Granted LANNETT CO: Court Junks Contaminated Ranitidine Related Suit LANNETT COMPANY: Utesch Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Stanfield Alleges LEND LEASE: Court Narrows Claims in Burn Class Suit LEXISNEXIS RISK: Hill Bid to Certify Class Moot LIVE VENTURES: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action LIVE VENTURES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 12 Deadline LOANDEPOT INC: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of November 5 Deadline LOANDEPOT INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of November 8 Deadline LOANDEPOT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 8 Deadline MASSACHUSETTS DOR: Green Suit Removed to D. Mass. MATRIX ABSENCE: Settlement Talks in "Weeks" Extended to 30 Days METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1 MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Faces Public Housing Discrimination Class Action MONRO INC: Kiaunis Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages & 401(k) Plans NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Head Injury Risk Class Action Pending NATIONAL WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Alleges NCAA: Former Notre Dame Footballer Sues Over Head Injuries NCAA: Judge Allows HBCU Class-Action Lawsuit to Move Forward NEW ORLEANS, LA: November 2 Hearing in Landfill Class Action NEW YORK TIMES: Court Hears Renewal Fraud Class Action Settlement NEW YORK, NY: Averts Class Action Over Foster Care System NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Elisa W.'s Bid for Class Certification NORTH COAST: Bryant Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Worker Class NT STOLEN: Class Action to Continue Despite Redress Scheme NVIDIA CORPORATION: Tobias Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice NVR INC: Hughes Seeks Loan Processors' Unpaid Overtime Wages OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Suit Seeks to Certify Class OMNICARE INC: Settlement Deal in Davis Suit Gets Final Nod OREGON MUTUAL: Dakota Ventures Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal OWN USA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PARADIES SHOPS: Data Breach Caused Huge Damages, Lawsuit Alleges PFIZER INC: Nov. 1 EpiPen Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set PIPES & SHAW: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York POLARIS INC: Averts Class Action Over Vehicles' Design Defect PRIME COAST: Thompson Sues Over Vending Machines' Hidden Fees ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Reconsideration of Class Cert. Bid Sought SAFECO INSURANCE: 7th Cir. Adopts Objective Reasonableness Standard SAUDI ARABIA: Class Action Over 9/11 Terrorist Attacks Pending SCIPLAY CORP: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Hartel Putative Securities Class Suit SESEN BIO: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 18 Deadline SESEN BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 18 Deadline SLINGSHOT TECHNOLOGIES: Gardner Sues Over CSRs' Unpaid Wages SONIC CORP: Judge Denies Bid for Early Judgment in Data Breach Suit SPECTRUM PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 1 Deadline SPECTRUM PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Novemeber 1 Deadline ST. LOUIS, MO: Filing of Class Status Response Extended STATE FARM: Baker Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status Denial STUDENT LOAN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls STURDY MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set T-MOBILE US: Asks the Court to Consolidate Data Breach Class Suits T-MOBILE USA: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach TENNESSEE: 3rd Family Joins Class Action Over Mask Opt-Out Order TENNESSEE: Judge Hears Governor's Mask Opt-Out Order in Schools THERANOS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certif. in Fraud Lawsuit TIVITY HEALTH: Securities Class Action Pending in Tennessee TOTAL LIFE: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to Oct. 11 TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Class Claims in WM Bang Suit Dismissed TRUE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Neighbors Suit Says TRULIEVE INC: Settles Hiring Class Action for Undisclosed Amount TTE TECHNOLOGY: Joint Stipulated Class Status Briefing OK'd TUTTO IL GIORNO: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Zhiminaicela Suit Claims TWIN CITY FIRE: Cosmetic Laser Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal TYSON FOODS: Settles Broiler Chicken Antitrust Class Action Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: WeirFoulds Attorney Disccuses Class Cert. Ruling UNIQUE FREIGHT: Villamar Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action UNITED KINGDOM: Class Action Mulled Over Quarantine Hotel Policy UNITED STATES: Black Civil Servants Vow to Press on With Suit UNITED STATES: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class of Air Force Veterans UNITED STATES: Mossman Seeks to Certify Class of Landlords UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Davis FCRA Suit UPS SUPPLY: Dismissal of Hughes' Unpaid Wages Class Claim Affirmed VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lutz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VITA LOCATORS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Price Suit WATERDROP INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 15 Deadline WATERDROP INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline WE MAKE DOUGH: Garcia Seeks Unpaid OT Wages & Spread of Hours Pay WILLAMETTE VALLEY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in "Kelley" WISCONSIN: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Unemployment Benefits YOSEIRY GROCERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges [*] Kutak Rock Attorneys Discuss Dismissed Bank Fee Class Action ********* 360 DIGITECH: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. 360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ:QFIN) Investors Affected: April 29, 2021 - July 7, 2021 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in 360 DigiTech, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting personal information in violation of relevant People's Republic of China laws and regulations; (ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/360-digitech-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19513&from=1 Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ:OTLY) Investors Affected: May 20, 2021 - July 15, 2021 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Oatly Group AB. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Oatly overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and market share financial metrics; (b) the Company overstated its sustainability practices and impact; (c) the Company exaggerated its growth in China; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its operations, business, and prospects were misleading during the Class Period. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form/?id=19513&from=1 Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:SAVA) Investors Affected: February 2, 2021 - August 24, 2021 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Cassava Sciences, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the quality and integrity of the scientific data supporting Cassava's claims for simufilam's, a small molecule drug designed to treat Alzheimer's disease, efficacy had been overstated; (b) the scientific data supporting Cassava's claims for simufilam's efficacy were biased; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements during the Class Period about the Company's business metrics and financial prospects and the likelihood of Food and Drug Administration approval were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cassava-sciences-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19513&from=1 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] ACT INC: Bais Yaakov Can't Pursue TCPA Class Action, Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sara J. Triplett, writing for TCPA World, reports that that's right - Bais Yaakov is back, baby! And it's brought gifts. You might recall Bais Yaakov - the private high school we've previously blogged about on more than a few occasions. Well, the First Circuit refused to allow Bais Yaakov to pursue a TCPA class action based on claims that it received three unsolicited fax advertisements from college testing provider ACT, Inc. The Court also rejected Bais Yaakov's argument that the district court had erred in finding the "Solicited Fax Rule" to be invalid. See Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Act, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26135 (1st Cir. Aug. 30, 2021). To recap, Bais Yaakov is a small private high school that -- once upon a time in 2005 -- filled out a request form indicating that it wanted to administer standardized tests, such as the ACT. In 2012, ACT sent three one-page faxes to the school. And, hoo boy! Little could ACT have known that these three faxes would cause Bais Yaakov to wage a decades-long vendetta against it. Even the First Circuit was awed by the school's tenacity, beginning its decision with this zinger: Bais Yaakov has since [receiving three one-page faxes in 2012] pursued ACT with a zeal that would impress even Hugo's Inspector Javert. But, I digress. Back to the law. This most recent decision in the Bais Yaakov saga is, suffice it to say, DENSE. Still, there are two important takeaways -- or, gifts as a defense lawyer might say -- that the Court delivered. First, in a unanimous ruling, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of Baas Yaakov's motion to certify two classes -- allegedly consisting of thousands of schools that received unsolicited faxes from ACT. Class A sought to include only recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements from ACT that had no opt-out notice. Class B was broader, including recipients of any (even solicited) fax advertisements from ACT that did not contain an opt-out notice. The Court rejected both classes because they failed a predominance inquiry. In other words, the Court found that the district court "reasonably determined that individual issues of permission would predominate over common questions for both Class A and Class B." Even better, the Court denied certification as to Bais Yaakov's Class A because it found the proposed class would constitute a "fail-safe class," that is, a class that would bind members only if they prevailed on an ultimate merits issue to become a member of that class. You see, in order to determine if a fax had been truly "solicited," a court would have to entertain countless mini-trials. And this can't happen in a class action. Whether or not a fail-safe class can survive a predominance inquiry -- and thus be certified -- is a tricky one that has caused a split among circuit courts. The fact that the First Circuit took a stand here is certainly significant, as the Court itself was aware: It is safe to assume that our "predominance" holding in this case will not go unnoticed. The second big takeaway from this case is that the Court ruled that the Solicited Fax Rule is DEAD. The Court agreed with the D.C. Circuit's decision in 2017, finding that the FCC had no authority under the TCPA to regulate faxes that were sent with the recipient's consent. And, although the Court was not bound by the D.C. Circuit Court's decision, it nonetheless found that it made "good sense." You might remember that we in TCPAWorld previously celebrated Solicited Fax Freedom Day: All of which leads us to today - Solicited Fax Freedom Day in TCPAWorld. (It's sort of like Bastille Day, but with fewer beheadings.) For today is the day that the FCC's post Bais Yaakov ruling finally takes effect and the Solicited Fax Rule is officially withdrawn ending 13 years of (figurative) bloodshed in federal courthouses over the content of solicited faxes. So, there you have it. The First Circuit delivers us two "gifts" with this most recent Bais Yaakov decision. Happy Sunday all. [GN] AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Danny Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation; AIR MENZIES INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., a corporation; MENZIES AVIATION (USA), INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV26797 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 2, 2021, and assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07108-AS. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action under the California Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA"), which is premised on the following alleged violations of the California Labor Code: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (5) Failure to Permit Inspection of Records; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Wages; (7) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Termination; (8) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and (9) Failure to Reimburse.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Ward, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418 Phone: 213.972.4500 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 Email: cward@foley.com - amd - Kevin Jackson, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130-2594 Phone: 858.847.6700 Facsimile: 858.792.6773 Email: kjackson@foley.com ALABAMA: Hurst Loses Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM JAMES HURST v. STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00537-ECM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order that: -- the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted, and the motion for class certification is denied. -- the case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. On August 17, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation to which no timely objections have been filed. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cn3naH at no extra charge.[CC] ALLEN, TX: Parents File Class Action v. ISD Over COVID-19 Measures ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jobin Panicker, writing for WFAA, reports that Therissa Grefsrud has two children, ages 7 and 6, and like most parents, she is concerned for her school-age children in this pandemic. The single mother from Allen is one of several hundred parents challenging Allen Independent School District in court. "Honestly, I feel like when I'm sending them [to school] we're playing Russian roulette with their lives and other kid's lives," said Grefsrud. Grefsrud is a registered nurse specializing in infection prevention and epidemiology. She told WFAA that she had exhausted every other avenue before taking the legal route. The complaint was filed late on Sept. 8. It is a class action lawsuit comprised of Allen parents to the Eastern District of Texas, a federal court. In the complaint, attorneys cite the 14th Amendment. The complaint reads: "The School Board has a duty to assure the right to life of the DOES's and all students for that matter, is effectuated in School Board Policies, Procedures and Directives but currently it is not. In fact, it gives more import to the happiness of some students over the life, health and welfare of many others." Attorneys for the Allen parents supplied a letter from 200 physicians at Cooks Children Healthcare System expressing concern over the delta variant. "You can only do so much before you realize nobody is going to hear you," said Grefsrud. Allen ISD does not have a mask mandate. It also does not have virtual learning options. Grefsrud believes masks work and said the polarizing topic of masks usually dominate the conversation, but she cited many other measures that could be taken, like social distancing and classroom spacing. "There are very clear recommendations of what we should be doing to keep our kids safe and communities safe. You have a room that is plenty big and few enough kids to do that and they aren't doing it," she said. Allen ISD sent WFAA the following statement: "Due to the ongoing litigation, the school district cannot speak to the specifics regarding its response to the lawsuit at this time. The district, however, strongly disagrees that the students' constitutional rights have been violated by leaving masks as an option for students and staff. Allen ISD continues to work proactively and professionally with parents who have questions or concerns about COVID-related issues. The vast majority of these concerns have been resolved without the need for litigation." Grefsrud said she'd rather not go to court but feels she is out of options. She feels what she and other parents are asking for are common-sense and reasonable recommendations by CDC and other medical entities. "I vacillate between finding my patience and empathy and just feeling very angry, because so much of it is preventable," she said. [GN] ALLSTATE CORP: Settlement Agreement Reached in Insurance Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Texas law firm has reached an agreement with Allstate to dismiss a proposed class action accusing the insurer of routinely putting forth unqualified expert witnesses to delay justice and drive up litigation costs. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Action Alleges Alexa Violates Illinois' BIPA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle at chicagobusinesslitigationlawyerblog.com report that Amazon is facing a class-action lawsuit filed in the Madison County Circuit Court alleging that Amazon's Alexa violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In setting out its case against Amazon, the Complaint quotes an interview with former Amazon senior editor James Marcus in which he said that "It was made clear from the beginning that data collection was also one of Amazon's businesses. All customer behavior that flowed through the site was recorded and tracked. And that itself was a valuable commodity." The Complaint details the near ubiquity of Amazon's voice-based virtual assistant Alexa by alleging that Alexa is embedded in numerous Amazon devices such as Echo speakers, Fire tablets, and others. The Complaint goes on to allege that Alexa can additionally be integrated into other devices such as phones, TVs, thermostats, appliances, lights, and many more consumer products. The Complaint alleges that after Alexa responds to a request, Amazon collects and subsequently stores "voiceprints" of the user, and "transcriptions" of the voiceprints. These voiceprints and transcriptions constitute biometric identifiers or biometric information regulated by BIPA, according to the Complaint. The suit goes on to allege that Amazon does not delete the voiceprint or transcription after Alexa has responded. Instead, the Complaint alleges, Amazon uses these recordings to collect biometric information which it uses to improve the speech and voice recognition capabilities of Alexa. Although Alexa is supposed to activate only after hearing its "wake word," the Complaint alleges that Alexa-enabled devices frequently capture conversations by accident without being triggered. The Complaint cites a study conducted by Ruhr-Universität Bochum and the Bochum Max Planck Institute for Cyber Security and Privacy that allegedly discovered more than 1,000 sequences of words that incorrectly trigger smart speakers, such as Alexa. According to the Complaint, the study found that Alexa was inadvertently activated by the words "unacceptable" and "election." Echoing the concerns that privacy advocates have voiced for many years, the lawsuit purports to detail Amazon's extensive use of the voiceprints captured by Alexa. Initially, the Complaint alleges, "Amazon represented that the voiceprints were simply streamed to the cloud and used only to allow Alexa to respond to the command and help personalize Alexa's response to a user." According to the Complaint, Amazon only later admitted "that it stores voiceprints, the transcriptions made from the voiceprints, and other information created from the voiceprints, including 'acoustic models' of the speaker's voice characteristics, on multiple servers." Amazon allegedly employs thousands of individuals worldwide who listen to recordings made by Alexa and review transcriptions in order to "eliminate gaps in Alexa's understanding of human speech and help it better respond to commands." The suit accuses Amazon of violating the BIPA by failing to notify Illinois users that their voiceprints are collected, stored and used and that their interactions are recorded. The plaintiff in the suit, April Schaeffer, seeks to represent not only herself but a class of "all Illinois residents who own an Alexa device located in Illinois from which, during the class period, Amazon has taken possession of the person's voiceprint and/or a voiceprint transaction, acoustic model of voice characteristics, or other information created from a voiceprint that is linked to the person; and who have suffered no injury from Amazon's violations of BIPA and/or other statutory aggrievement." The Complaint requests entry of a permanent injunction enjoining Amazon from collecting, obtaining, storing, using, selling, leasing, trading, profiting from, disclosing or disseminating users' biometric identifiers and information until it is done in compliance with BIPA. It also seeks damages of $5,000 per willful violation of BIPA or $1,000 per negligent violation and an award of attorneys' fees. This is not the first time Alexa has gotten Amazon in hot water. This lawsuit comes on the heels of another class-action suit involving Alexa filed recently by four healthcare workers who allege that their Amazon Alexa devices recorded conversations involving health information without their consent and in violation of HIPAA. Super Lawyers named Wilmette and Elmhurst business litigation and class-action litigation attorneys Peter Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle a Super Lawyer and Rising Star respectively in the Categories of Class Action, Consumer Rights Litigation, and Business Litigation. Lubin Austermuehle's Oak Brook and Chicago consumer rights litigation lawyers have over thirty-five years of experience litigating complex class action and consumer protection lawsuits. We handle consumer rights, auto fraud, complex class action, breach of contract, franchise and dealer termination, copyright, partnership, and shareholder oppression suits, non-compete agreement, trademark and libel suits, and many different types of business and commercial litigation disputes. In every case, our goal is to resolve disputes as quickly and successfully as possible, helping business clients protect their investments and get back to business as usual. From offices near Naperville and Wheaton, we serve clients throughout Illinois and the country. To set up a consultation with one of our Chicago class-action attorneys and Chicago business trial lawyers, please call us toll-free at (833) 306-4933 or contact us online. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Chaves Suit Over Unlawful Sales Tax Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE CHAVES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01213 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 7, 2021) is a class action for breach of contract and consumer protection act violations arising from Amazon's unlawful charge of a "sales tax" to United States customers, including Plaintiff, on certain digital and gift card goods, despite the tax-exempt status of such goods under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that Amazon willfully and knowingly overcharged its subscribers a false and unlawful sales tax on their purchases of digital and gift card items. Amazon falsely represented that the tax charges imposed on purchases were consistent with the laws of the relevant states of purchase, and falsely represented that "[n]o tax is charged while purchasing gift cards." Although Amazon claims to regularly review its billing and collection practices for tax compliance purposes, Amazon engaged in a uniform, years-long practice of charging a "sales tax" on numerous purchases of digital items and gift cards from its marketplace in jurisdictions that exempt taxation of those products, says the complaint. Amazon owns and operates Amazon.com, the world's largest online marketplace.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 837-4717 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com AMERICAN CAMPUS: Certification of Class in Berry Upheld as Modified ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, American Campus Communities, Inc.; American Campus (PVAMU) Ltd.; American Campus (PVAMU IV) Ltd.; ACC OP (PVAMU VI), LLC; ACC OP (PVAMU VII), LLC; ACC OP (PVAMU VIII), LLC; American Campus (Laredo), Ltd.; American Campus (U of H), Ltd.; ACC OP (West Abram), LLC; ACC OP (The Block), LLC; 22 1/2 Street Partners, L.P.; Campus Investors Austin, LLC; Campus Investors Austin, LLC; ACC OP (Pearl Street), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm), LLC; ACC OP (Retreat Sm Land), LLC; ACC OP (Sanctuary Lofts), LLC; ACC OP (Vistas San Marcos), LLC; ACC (Outpost San Marcos), L.P.; Campus Investors Hrse-SC, LLC; American Campus Communities Operating Partnership, L.P.; ACC (Outpost San Antonio), L.P.; ACC OP (West Campus), LLC; ACC OP (Uta Blvd.), LLC; ACC OP (26 West), LLC; GMH/GF Denton Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Cityparc), L.P.; Apkshv Lubbock, L.P.; ACC (Raiders Pass), L.P.; Lubbock Two Associates, LLC; Lubbock Main Street Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Overton Park), LLC; ACC OP (Tract 6), LLC; Sycamore Avenue Associates, LLC; ACC OP (Tracts 32 and 33), LLC; ACC OP (Denton-Fry), LLC; SHP-The Callaway House, L.P.; ACC OP (Callaway Villas), L.P.; ACC (Aggie Station), L.P.; ACC OP (Marion Pugh), LLC; ACC OP (South College Avenue), LLC; Campus Investors Baylor, LLC; & ACC OP (Speight Avenue), LLC, Appellants v. Beth Berry, Brooke Berry, Yael Spirer, and Hailey Hoppenstein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellees, Case No. 03-21-00119-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Third District, Austin, modifies the trial court's order granting the Tenants' motion to certify the class action and affirms it. Background The Appellants are American Campus Communities and more than 30 of its subsidiaries (collectively, ACC), all of which are landlords at separate residential properties throughout Texas. The Appellees are ACC's former tenants (Tenants) who filed a class action alleging that ACC violated the Texas Property Code and was strictly liable to them for civil penalties. The Tenants filed an "Original Petition and Class Action Petition" in October 2018 alleging that ACC had violated Section 92.056(g) of the Property Code by not including statutorily required language in its uniform lease agreements with Tenants (who were generally college students) and that the Tenants were entitled to statutory remedies for such omissions. The Tenants alleged that all the Defendants except American Campus Communities are subsidiaries of that corporation and operate under an "umbrella" of corporate control by that entity or American Campus Communities Operating Partnership, L.P. In June 2020, the Tenants filed a motion for class certification. ACC filed a response in opposition followed by a motion for summary judgment. The trial court heard argument on ACC's motion for summary judgment on Sept. 22, 2020, and conducted an evidentiary hearing on Tenants' motion for certification on Oct. 1, 2020. On Nov. 4, 2020, the Tenants filed their live (third amended) petition in which they asserted two "counts" for themselves individually and the following putative class: "All Texas tenants under an ACC residential lease that was executed, entered into, continued, renewed, or extended during the class period." In their first count -- "Breach of Statutory Duty to Disclose" -- the Tenants alleged that ACC violated Section 92.056(g) of the Texas Property Code with respect to the subject lease agreements used during the proposed class period since same did not contain required notice language in underlined or bold print (or any language whatsoever) that informed tenants of the remedies available under Section 92.056 and Section 92.0561 of the Texas Property Code. They sought statutory remedies of a "civil penalty of one month's rent plus $500 as to each member of the defined class" plus court costs and attorney's fees. In their second count -- "Breach of Statutory Anti-Waiver Prohibition" -- the Tenants alleged that ACC's "refusal to include the mandated language in Section 92.056(g) constitutes an attempt to constructively inhibit, restrict or waive its landlord duties and corresponding tenant rights and remedies in violation of" Section 92.006 and that ACC acted "knowingly" in omitting the language, entitling each class member to "a civil penalty of one month's rent plus $2,000." In a section of their live petition entitled "Equitable Relief," the Tenants additionally alleged that ACC "continues to violate Texas law" for which they "seek the declarations and injunctive relief outlined in Section 6 of this Third Amended Petition," including a declaration of "the legal deficiency" of ACC's "2018 Lease Addendum" and "current leasing agreements." They also asked the court to issue a permanent injunction (1) prohibiting ACC from "using, employing, relying on, or seeking any relief based on the 2018 Lease Addendum," (2) "mandating that ACC provide the statutorily required notice in proper print and use full and complete language in compliance with Sections 92.006 and 92.056(g)," and (3) enjoining ACC from "utilizing legal defenses otherwise available to a residential landlord regarding repair reporting and timing of repair completion for tenancies existing during the class period." The trial court signed an order denying ACC's summary-judgment motion on Nov. 25, 2020, and an order granting class certification on Feb. 26, 2021. The trial court's certification order certified the following class: "All Texas tenants residing under an American Campus Communities residential lease that was executed, entered into, continued, renewed, or extended between Oct. 1, 2014 and March 21, 2018 at a property where one of the Defendants was the owner or landlord." The order certified the following claims: (1) "Breach of Statutory Duty to Disclose under Texas Property Code Section 92.056(g)" and (2) "Breach of Statutory Anti-Waiver Provision under Texas Property Code Section 92.006." The court also granted certification "pursuant to Rule 42(b)(2)," because it is "appropriate to address claims seeking declarations" of the "legal sufficiency of ACC's 2018 Lease Addendum" and "current leasing agreements" and to "determine the propriety of retrospective and prospective injunctive relief enjoining ACC from utilizing legal defenses related to repair reporting and timing of repair completion for tenancies existing during the class period. Discussion ACC contends that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the class by finding that (1) common issues predominate over those affecting only individual class members; and (2) the class representatives satisfied the typicality and adequacy requirements. In a third issue, ACC contends that the trial court erred in certifying the class for declaratory and injunctive relief. A. Predominance The Court of Appeals begins by examining the Property Code provisions under which Tenants have sued ACC and for which they seek redress. The Tenants first complain about ACC's alleged violation of subsection (g) of Section 92.056. Subsection (g) provides, "A lease must contain language in underlined or bold print that informs the tenant of the remedies available under this section and Section 92.0561." The Tenants contend that because the subject leases did not contain the language required by Section 92.056(g), ACC is strictly liable to them for statutory damages as provided in Section 92.0563: "A tenant's judicial remedies under Section 92.056 will include a judgment against the landlord for a civil penalty of one month's rent plus $500." While ACC has conceded that the subject leases did not contain the Section 92.056(g) language, it contends -- as it did in its summary-judgment motion -- that Tenants cannot meet the predominance requirement because "as a matter of law" neither Section 92.056(g) nor 92.006(c) "allows for strict liability" or a private right of action via Section 92.0563's judicial remedies. Instead, ACC continues, the judicial remedies provided in Section 92.0563 apply only when a landlord has violated subsection (b) of Section 92.056, and proof of such violation would necessarily entail individual proof by every tenant of facts such as the tenant's notification to their landlord of a condition requiring repair, the tenant's being current on rent, and the landlord's failure to make diligent efforts to repair the condition. The Court of Appeals opines that while the Tenants' live petition contains allegations of repair requests that Berry, Spirer, and Hoppenstein filed with their respective landlords regarding problems such as "excessive water intrusion" into their living units, those allegations pertain to those plaintiffs' individual claims in their third count (which is not at issue in this appeal) for breach of the statutory duty to repair and resulting personal-property damages. The trial court did not (and was not asked to) certify that claim on behalf of the class. Instead, the trial court certified two straightforward strict-liability claims that will "prevail, or fail, in unison on the basis of the common proof and the ultimate legal conclusions," such as (1) whether a landlord is strictly liable to its tenants for mere failure to include in its lease the language mandated by Section 92.056(g), (2) whether omitting the required language also constitutes a violation of the anti-waiver provision in Section 92.006(c), (3) whether ACC had knowledge of the "legislated requirements" of residential leases in using its uniform leases, and (4) what scope of control American Campus Communities, Inc. exercised over its subsidiaries. The first two of these are legal determinations that the trial court has, at least at this juncture, determined adversely to ACC, and we cannot review that determination in this interlocutory posture. The second two are factual questions that can be resolved based on common proof rather than on individualized proof that could vary from tenant to tenant. Furthermore, should the common liability questions be determined in Tenants' favor, damages will be easily ascertainable by applying the simple statutory formula to ACC's admittedly readily available records. On this record, the trial court could reasonably have concluded that common issues of law and fact would predominate over questions affecting only individual class members. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Tenants have met the predominance requirement, and the Court of Appeals overrules ACC's first issue. B. Typicality and adequacy In its second issue, ACC argues that the three class representatives failed to meet the "intertwined typicality and adequacy-of-representation" requirements. As to Hoppenstein and Spirer, ACC contends that the two plaintiffs are "inadequate class representatives because their claims are barred on limitations grounds, and the limitations defense renders their claims atypical of those asserted by the class." In briefing this issue, ACC explains that its real challenge to Hoppenstein and Spirer is the trial court's class definition, which—by use of the word "continued"6—includes tenants who executed leases, extensions, or renewals before Oct. 1, 2014, but did not execute any such agreements during the class period. In other words, ACC complains that the class definition includes Hoppenstein, Spirer, and potentially others whose leases were merely in force during the class period but were not executed, extended, or renewed during the class period. Thus, ACC's argument concludes, those tenants' claims accrued before Oct. 1, 2014, and are barred by the statute of limitations. The Tenants respond that whether certain class members' claims are barred by statutes of limitations under the circumstances here is a purely legal question and that Hoppenstein's claim being possibly barred by limitations is an issue she has in common with other as-yet-undetermined class members in the same circumstances, obviating any assertion that Hoppenstein is not a "typical" or "adequate" class representative. The Court of Appeals agrees with Tenants. Firstly, it says, "the existence of a defense against a named party that may not exist against the rest of the class does not necessarily destroy typicality." Secondly, when a limitations defense does not involve disputed facts but merely the application of law to established facts, it is unlikely to become the focus of the litigation, and an appellate court generally will not conclude that a trial court abused its discretion in determining that the named party's claims are typical of the class. The Court of Appeals therefore declines ACC's invitation to address the merits of its limitations defense and instead conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Hoppenstein and Spirer are typical and adequate class representatives. As to Berry, ACC argues that she had no standing when the suit was filed because her claim had been "mooted" by her receipt of the 2018 addendum months before, and that -- in any event -- her claim was rendered "atypical" of the class by her admitted refusal to sign the addendum. However, the Tenants allege that the addendum was inadequate to meet the statutory requirements and have placed the adequacy of the addendum at issue in their pleadings. Therefore, the questions of whether the addendum was sufficient to meet the statutory requirement and -- if the addendum was sufficient -- whether it would have a retroactive effect so as to extinguish a tenant's statutory remedies for a landlord's prior violation are legal questions going to the merits of the parties' dispute. Those questions are not appropriately decided in determining whether a party is an adequate class representative. Furthermore, even assuming that the 2018 addendum met the statutory requirements, the Court of Appeals opines that Berry would nonetheless have a personal stake and "cognizable interest" in the issue of whether she is entitled to statutory damages for ACC's alleged statutory violations for the period before she received the addendum. ACC's argument assumes that the merits of such question lie in its favor. But, again, we may not consider the merits of a claim on interlocutory appeal of a certification order. The Court of Appeals reaches the same conclusion as to ACC's argument that Berry's admitted refusal to sign the addendum rendered her claim "atypical" of the class. As it already discussed, in light of the common issues of fact and law, this purportedly "uncommon" issue of Berry's refusal to sign the addendum does not render her claims atypical of those of the class, even if her status as a non-signatory to the addendum is. On this record, the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the class representatives' claims and defenses are typical of the class and that Berry, Hoppenstein, and Spirer are adequate representatives. The Court of Appeals accordingly overrules ACC's second issue. C. Declaratory and injunctive relief In its third and final issue, ACC contends that the trial court erred in certifying a class, under Rule 42(b)(2), "as to a cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the 2018 lease addendum's and ACC's current lease agreements' respective compliance with Texas Property Code Section 92.006 and 92.056(g)" (the Equitable Claim). ACC explains the alleged error thus: "The factual record in no way supported certification of th[e Equitable C]laim because: (1) the Plaintiffs' operative petition at the time of the class certification hearing failed to actually state a separate claim for equitable relief and (2) the Plaintiffs have no class representative for such a claim." The Court of Appeals opines that the record belies ACC's first contention. The trial court did not err in certifying the remainder of the Equitable Claim, specifically as it relates to the 2018 addendum. First, the trial court did not err in certifying the remainder of the Equitable Claim, specifically as it relates to the 2018 addendum. Second, Texas's fair-notice pleading standard supports the conclusion that Tenants' recitation in their second amended petition regarding the Equitable Claim was sufficient to put ACC on notice of the claim. Finally, because Tenants challenge the statutory compliance of the disclosures in the addendum, the Court of Appeals cannot conclude in this interlocutory appeal that Berry had no live, justiciable controversy as to the addendum that a declaration and related injunctive relief would not resolve. Conclusion Because the trial court erred in certifying a declaratory and injunctive claim as to ACC's post-2018 leases, the Court of Appeals modifies the trial court's certification order to remove references to such claim, as indicated below by strikethrough for deletions and underlining for corresponding grammatical corrections: 25. Although Defendants do not contest its their noncompliance with the statutory mandate of Texas Property Code Section 92.056(g) prior to circulating the 2018 Lease Addendum. Plaintiffs assert the Defendants remain non-compliant with the statutory mandate of Texas Property Code Section 92.056(g). Thus, there is a live and justiciable controversy at issue. Plaintiffs request relief enumerating the existence of the statutory right to notice specifically in mandated form, scope and availability of enforceability rights and remedies, and allowable damages. Plaintiffs further seek findings regarding whether the 2018 Lease Addendum and residential leasing agreements since March 2018 are is compliant with Texas Property Code. 26. The Court grants certification pursuant to Rule 42(b)(2) to answer and declare: (1) the existence of the statutory right to notice specifically in mandated form, (2) applicability of the Anti-Waiver requirements under Sections 92.006, (3) whether condition precedents are required to seeking judicial remedies, (4) whether failure to provide the required notice in correct format affects past and future reliance of on defenses and allowable damages. This certification under Rule 42(b)(2) will provide binding findings declaring whether the 2018 Lease Addendum meets the disclosure requirements of Section 92.056(g); and whether the 2018 Lease Addendum violates the Anti-Waiver provision of Section 92.006.; whether the ACC residential lease agreements since 2018 to the present are compliant with Section 92.006 and Section 92.056(g); and (4) determine the appropriateness of formal prohibition of continued use of residential leases that do not contain the required statutory language in legislated format. 27. The Court finds that certification is appropriate to address claims seeking declarations of whether residential leases, including the use of the 2018 Lease Addendum, implicating an actual controversy regarding questions of construction or validity, which will serve a useful purpose or will terminate the certain controversies between the parties, including: (1) legal sufficiency of ACC's 2018 Lease Addendum after testing compliance with Section 92.006(c) and/or Section 92.056(g); and (2) legal sufficiency of ACC's 2018-- current leasing agreements after testing compliance with Section 92.006(c) and/or Section 92.056(g). The Court of Appeals affirms the class-certification order, as modified. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/8nwvzahm from Leagle.com. AMERICSOURCEBERGEN: Board Accepts Opioid Suit Against Pharma Cos. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron A, writing for Northwest Signal, reports that the four County ADAMhs Board approved several additional contracts for the current fiscal year and also approved a resolution accepting the One Ohio lawsuit agreement against three large pharmaceutical distributors for contributing to the opioid crisis. The ADAMhs Board participated in the class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical distributors AmericsourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson Corp. According to board CEO Rob Geisige, as one of many participants in the lawsuit, the four county board must apply for specific grants to the One Ohio Foundation that will be created to distribute most the funds coming to Ohio over the next 18 years. [GN] ANNOVIS BIO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Annovis Bio, Inc. ("Annovis" or "the Company") (NYSE American: ANVS) 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 May 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before October 18, 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. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Annovis's ANVS401 failed to demonstrate statistically significant results across multiple patient populations related to important metrics like judgment and problem-solving ability. Based on this fact, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Annovis, investors suffered damages. 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] ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Plaintiffs Must File Bid to Amend by Sept. 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, et al., v. ANTHONY VINEYARDS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01404-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order that: -- The request for additional time to file the motion to amend is granted. -- The plaintiffs shall file their motion to amend, if at all, no later than September 24, 2021. In their motion, the plaintiffs shall explain why they proposed Mr. Martinez originally when they now admit he cannot take on the role. Anthony Vineyards produces fruit products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kgHgwv at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Class Action Mulled Over Cracked M1 MacBook Screens -------------------------------------------------------------- News18 reports that Apple MacBook Pro and MacBook Air with the M1 chipsets have been a hit product since their launch. However, there has been a chink in the armour as many users are complaining about the screens on their M1-powered MacBook Air and MacBook Pro laptops are cracking for no reason apparently. This has come under the notice of Washington-based law firm named Migiliaccio & Rathod that is now seeking reports of owners with cracked screens to prepare a class action lawsuit against the iPhone maker. "Many users allege that they have opened their devices from the closed position without applying any undue pressure, only to find dramatic cracks in the retina display, often accompanied by black bars running across the screen," the law firm said in a statement. The reports of cracked MacBook screens first came to light around July this year, with both M1-powered MacBook Pro and MacBook Air owners reporting that their display cracks during normal usage. A 9to5Mac report quotes a user as saying that one fine day they opened their M1-powered MacBook Pro, only to find cracks in the screen. He said that he was asked to pay GBP570 (roughly Rs 58,000) upfront in order to repair it. "I told them that I had done nothing to damage the screen but their response was that their technicians would decide if I had damaged it and would, in that case, lose my money," the user was quoted as saying. However, the same 9to5Mac report says that Apple did repair or replace the machines free of charge in some cases. There are also threads on Apple Support Communities and Reddit, where users have reported that the cracks occurred when they opened or closed the lid, or that they were simply there next time they came to use the machine. Migiliaccio & Rathod LLP does not state that it is contemplating a class action lawsuit, and says that it is investigating reports it has received. The law firm had, in 2018, investigated Microsof Surface Pro 4's screen flickering issue for a potential suit, but cancelled it later after Microsoft announced a replacement program. [GN] APPLE INC: Class Action Over Siri Voice Assistant Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Fox Business reports that a federal judge has given a green light for a class-action lawsuit claiming that Apple's Siri voice assistant violates users' privacy. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said the plaintiffs would be allowed to move forward with lawsuits trying to prove that Siri routinely recorded their private conversations because of "accidental activations" and that Apple provided the conversations to advertisers, according to Reuters. The plaintiffs claim that Apple violated the federal Wiretap Act and California privacy law, among other claims. Separate lawsuits against Google and Amazon make similar claims about voice assistants. One of the most common claims cited in the lawsuits is that conversations were recorded without user consent and then used by advertisers to target the plaintiffs. This is happening against a backdrop of surging smart speaker sales. As of June 2021, the installed base of smart speakers in the U.S. reached 126 million units, jumping from 20 million units in June 2017, according to Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP). Amazon has the biggest slice of the installed base, with 69% as of June of this year. The installed base of smart speakers grew considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic, adding over 25 million units in the past year," said Josh Lowitz, CIRP Partner and Co-Founder in a statement. Should you be worried? How to protect yourself Amazon, Apple and Google all offer smart speakers that use variations of voice assistant technology that is activated when users say key words such as "Hey Siri" for Apple devices or "OK Google" for Google products or "Alexa" for Amazon smart devices. Amazon devices store that data when activated with a key word or so-called wake word. "No audio is stored or sent to the cloud unless the device detects the wake word (or Alexa is activated by pressing a button)," an Amazon spokesperson told FOX Business in an email. "Customers have several options to manage their recordings, including the option to not have their recordings saved at all and the ability to automatically delete recordings on an ongoing three- or 18-month basis," the spokesperson added. If you don't want to be recorded by Alexa, in the Alexa app go into the "Privacy" menu. Then go to "Manage your Alexa data" then "Choose how long to save recordings." Then select "Don't save recordings." Amazon collects and uses voice recordings to deliver and improve services, according to the company. This includes helping train Alexa to better understand different accents and dialects and to provide the right response to requests. Amazon also said it "manually" reviews data but does not sell it to third parties. "To help improve Alexa, we manually review and annotate a small fraction of one percent of Alexa requests. Access to human review tools is only granted to employees who require them to improve the service," the Amazon spokesperson said. "Our annotation process does not associate voice recordings with any customer identifiable information. Customers can opt-out of having their voice recordings included in the fraction of one percent of voice recordings that get reviewed," the spokesperson said. By default, Google doesn't retain your audio recordings, Jose Castaneda, a Google Spokesperson, told Fox Business. "We dispute the claims in this case and will vigorously defend ourselves," Castañeda said in a statement. However, if you want to confirm that the Google setting is off, go to your Google account and then to "Data and Privacy" then "Web & App Activity" and make sure the box is unchecked next to "Include audio recordings." The default setting is unchecked. Apple no longer retains Siri recordings without user permission, according to an Apple statement made in 2019. Siri will only retain your data if you choose to opt-in via settings on Apple devices. Amazon would not comment on the lawsuit, and Apple has yet to respond to a request for comment. [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over App That Led to Cryptocurrency Theft --------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Ericson Jr at courthousenews.com reports that cryptocurrency users who downloaded a Apple application called "Toast Plus" saw their money disappear, and now they're suing the iPhone maker in a class action lawsuit filed. According to the complaint filed in federal court in Maryland, Apple allowed hackers to place a spoof or "phishing" application disguised as a cryptocurrency wallet in its on-line App Store, inducing the plaintiff and others to download and install a criminal portal into their crypto accounts. The complaint, alleging negligence, fraud and a host of computer-specific privacy torts, was filed on behalf of Maryland resident Hadona Diep by Joshua Whitaker of the Baltimore law firm Aldelphi Law. Apple is liable because it failed to vet the software distributed by its online store, which it tightly controls by allowing only approved vendors and extracting a (until recently) 30% commission on every sale, the lawsuit says, adding that the boilerplate disclaimers in its user agreement don't apply: "The fact that Toast Plus was not an actual application, but instead a medium for the commission of fraud, makes any existing contract using it as subject matter void." Neither the company nor the plaintiff's attorney responded immediately to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Just weeks ago, Apple announced the settlement of another class action suit filed by US-based software developers, promising better terms for the people who make much of the software that iPhone users run. "From the beginning, the App Store has been an economic miracle; it is the safest and most trusted place for users to get apps, and an incredible business opportunity for developers to innovate, thrive and grow," the company said in a press release announcing the changes, which are pending approval by a judge. In fact the App Store is just about the only place anyone can get iPhone apps, and Apple has always claimed that's for the users' security. Users of the Toast Plus app found it anything but trustworthy, according to the lawsuit. "Plaintiff believed that Toast Plus was a version of Toast Wallet, a well known cryptocurrency wallet, as the names were similar and the logo used for the application in the App Store was the same or nearly identical," the lawsuit says. In January of 2018 Diep transferred 474 Ripple ("XRP") cryptocurrency coins to a cryptocurrency wallet which was shut down the next month. "Plaintiff thereafter linked her private XRP key, or a seed phrase, into Toast Plus in March of 2021," the complaint says, but did not transfer any of the money because she was holding the coins as an investment. Months later, in August, she checked the wallet to find that her cryptocurrency was gone. In fact, according to the lawsuit, she "discovered that not only did she have no XRP in the Wallet, her account was 'deleted' on March 3, 2021." Calls to the Toast Plus company, Apple and then law enforcement followed, according to the complaint, but no one took responsibility. The lawsuit says she lost more than $5,000. An online message board frequented by cryptocurrency users tells a similar story. "I went to the App Store and downloaded the first wallet that came up," a user calling themself Badinker wrote at ycombinator's message board in March. "So I went ahead and imported the private key and instantly before I could send the exchange all the XRP was transferred to . . . a known scam account." The complaint says anyone who downloaded the Toast Plus software is part of the class, "entitled to statutory damages of the greater of $10,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, actual and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and Defendant's profits obtained from the above described violations." [GN] APPLE INC: Judge Ordered to Implement App Store Payment Changes --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Gurman and Olga Kharif, writing for Bloomberg, report that Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google are two of the world's most profitable companies, and their app marketplaces are among their most profitable endeavors: according to analysts, Apple's App Store takes in more than $20 billion a year with a profit margin above 75%. Now such practices are coming under increasing scrutiny. U.S. senators and European regulators have griped about the "gatekeeper control" that Apple and Google have with their mobile operating systems. South Korea has moved to become the first country to impose curbs on the companies' app marketplaces. And a U.S. judge has ordered Apple to make sweeping changes as a result of a challenge from one of the world's biggest gamemakers. 1. What gamemaker has sued Apple? Epic Games Inc., the maker of Fortnite, sued Apple over the cut it takes from App Store transactions and what Epic claims are antitrust violations. Epic believes it shouldn't be forced to use Apple's payment system. The iPhone and iPad only come with one digital marketplace for downloading apps and the App Store's payment system charges developers commission of as much as 30%. Epic wants to use its own payment system for its hit video game Fortnite or for Apple to allow alternative App Stores. In August 2020, Epic circumvented Apple's rules and added its own payment system to Fortnite. Apple quickly removed the game from the App Store and Epic filed its lawsuit hours later. Apple countersued for breach of contract. 2. What is Epic unhappy about? Apple device users spent $72 billion on the App Store in 2020, with almost $22 billion of that going to the iPhone maker, according to SensorTower estimates. Some developers deride Apple's fees as an unfair and unwarranted tax, especially since it applies not just to the purchase of an app, but to anything bought within one, such as digital weapons, costumes and other add-ons popular in Fortnite. 3. Why does Apple charge App Store commissions? Apple takes as much as 30% of the revenue developers get from paid apps, in-app-purchases and subscriptions. The company argues the App Store's success is related to its review process, tight integration with its hardware, and privacy and safety rules. The company's payment system ensures consumers have a seamless experience and are protected from fraud. And for developers, there's access to about 1 billion Apple device owners who often spend more on apps than Android users. 4. Is Apple backing down? Exemptions have been added in recent years, but so far none apply to Epic's case. In 2016, Apple lowered to 15% the cut it takes from subscriptions beyond the first year. In 2020, it also agreed to lower its share to 15% if a developer earns less than $1 million in any year. In August 2021, it settled a class-action lawsuit by paying $100 million to a range of app makers. It also agreed to allow developers the use of communications outside the iOS app such as email to promote alternative payment methods that exclude Apple. In September, there was a further concession for so-called reader apps spanning content like magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music and video. Starting in 2022, they will be allowed to add a link in their app to direct users to other payment systems. 5. What did the judge do in the Epic case? U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who had overseen a three-week trial in May, ordered Apple to allow developers to steer consumers to outside payment methods for mobile apps. The judge concluded that Apple has engaged in anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers by preventing them from getting cheaper prices, but she didn't go as far as Epic sought. She said she could not conclude that Apple is a monopolist, and stopped short of ordering Apple to cut its 30% fee, though she said it isn't justified. She also ordered Epic to pay $4 million in damages to Apple for breach of contract. The ruling was seen as a blow to Apple's App Store business model. Apple, however, called the ruling a justification, saying that "the court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law." Epic has announced its intent to appeal. 6. Where does Google come into this? Google, via its Android Play Store, is also under scrutiny from regulators and developers. But a there's key difference. Google lets Android devices run other app stores that can offer different payment methods. Still, Epic Games also sued Google when the internet giant removed Fortnite from the Play Store last year for the same reason as Apple. 7. What's happening in South Korea? In late August, President Moon Jae-in's Democratic Party used its parliamentary supermajority to pass a bill that will ban companies from forcing developers to use their online payment systems. The bill was submitted in 2020 after Google said it would require all apps to use its payment system, charging up to a 30% commission on in-app purchases. That's a model common in other parts of the world and also employed by Apple. Earlier this year, the search giant lowered commissions to 15% for the first $1 million of revenue earned by developers, in part due to a global backlash. Under the latest version, companies that operate app stores must allow their users to pay through a variety of payment systems. It stipulates that tech giants must not "abuse their status to force their users to only use specific payment methods." (Updates section 5 with Epic to appeal) [GN] ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Banuelos Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Gustavo Banuelos, Fernando Izarraraz, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Armstrong Flooring, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 21STCV26905 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 15, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07393 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Armstrong Flooring -- https://www.armstrongflooring.com/ -- is an industry-leading manufacturer of innovative flooring products focusing on design, performance and durability for the home and commercial applications.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. ATLANTA ALLERGY: Alleged Data Breach Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Atlanta Allergy & Asthma recently learned that unauthorized individuals gained access to its computer systems from approximately January 5, 2021, to January 13, 2021. On July 8, 2021, and after a cybersecurity investigation, Atlanta Allergy & Asthma determined that certain sensitive private health information was exposed and exfiltrated during the data breach. Breached data may include, but is not necessarily limited to: full patient names, dates of birth, patient account numbers, Social Security numbers, treatment data, treatment costs, procedures performed, diagnoses, provider names, dates of treatment, treatment location, financial account information, routing numbers, and health insurance data. As a result of the data breach, Atlanta Allergy & Asthma has advised affected individuals to consider enrolling in a credit monitoring services, placing security freezes and fraud alerts on their credit files, as well as taking other mitigating steps. For additional information from Atlanta Allergy & Asthma about the data breach, please visit: Atlanta Allergy & Asthma Notice of Data Security Incident. If you believe you are a victim of the Atlanta Allergy & Asthma data breach, and would like to participate in a class action lawsuit regarding this data breach, please submit your information via the form on this webpage. This website is not associated with nor authorized by Atlanta Allergy & Asthma or any affiliated companies. The form is available at: https://www.abingtonlaw.com/Atlanta-Allergy-Asthma-Data-Breach-class-action-lawsuit.html [GN] AUTOLOTTO INC: Burstein Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- VARDA BURSTEIN and similarly situated Digital Security Holders, Plaintiffs v. AUTOLOTTO, INC., and TONY DIMATTEO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00793 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 8, 2021) seeks redress for AutoLotto's fraudulent scheme that it perpetrated on the Plaintiff and other unknowing investors in violation of the Section 12 of Securities Act of 1933. In 2018, Ms. Burstein invested $3 million with AutoLotto, an online lottery company that generated revenue through state-sanctioned lotteries and charitable raffles. In February 2021, AutoLotto was in the process of being acquired by Trident Acquisitions Corp. for hundreds of millions of dollars. Indeed, in July 2021, it was announced that AutoLotto would be receiving $43 million in cash to expand its operations, says the suit. Ms. Burstein's investment took the form of a convertible note, which would convert into equity in AutoLotto if a qualified financing did not occur within two years of her investment. With the two-year mark quickly approaching and a qualified financing likely not on the horizon, AutoLotto, and many individuals who stood to benefit tremendously from a sale of AutoLotto, realized that Plaintiff (and many other convertible note holders) would soon share in the profits resulting from AutoLotto's future acquisition. AutoLotto announced that investors could convert their investment. This conversion was couched as a "digital security," giving the holder access to a portion of revenue in an online lottery platform that AutoLotto would claim had amazing potential and promise, added the suit. According to the complaint, with this alleged deceitful maneuver, AutoLotto would keep all of its investors' money, wipe them out from the capitalization tables, and divert from these investors all of the benefits of their investments without ever having to account to them. The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated the 1933 Act and are liable to Plaintiff because they offered and sold "digital securities" to Plaintiff when the "digital securities" were neither subject to an effective registration statement pursuant to Section 5 of the 1933 Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Greyber, Esq. CALLAGY LAW, P.C. 1900 NW Corporate Blvd. Suite 310W Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mail: jgreyber@callagylaw.com BANKERS LIFE: Misclassifies Sales Representatives, Emory Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN EMORY, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04347-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, September 3, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiff Christian Emory was employed by the Defendants in Zanesville, Ohio from July 2019 through September 2019 as a sales representative. According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees "independent contractors." Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendants did not pay them for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime compensation, for the extensive hours worked daily and weekly. Instead, they were only compensated with commission payments. In addition, the Defendants did not compensate them for the required meetings and/or trainings, and failed to reimburse them for costs related to the use of their computers or telephone or for mileage. The Defendants also failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements. Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay them all the required wages due at termination of employment, the suit says. The Corporate Defendants are insurance providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN 8 N. Court St., Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Tel: (847) 986-5889 Fax: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com BANNER BANK: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Granted in Bolding --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BOLDING, et al., v. BANNER BANK, Case No. 2:17-cv-00601-RSL (W.D. Wash.) the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order granting in part and denying in part Banner's motion for summary judgment. Banner asserts that there is a lack of evidence showing that the vast majority of the individuals who make up the class worked hours that were unpaid, that the class claims fail entirely because no reasonable jury could find that Banner knew or should have that mortgage loan officers (MLOs) were performing off-the-clock work, that plaintiff Kelly Bolding is judicially estopped from pursuing the wage and hour claims asserted here, and that there is no evidence of bad faith or intent that could support an award of liquidated or double damages. Banner also seeks a declaration regarding the statutes of limitation that apply to the claims of Banner's Oregon employees. Oregon has a six-year statute of limitations for claims based on the taking or detaining of wages, but a two-year limitations period for "an action for overtime or premium pay or for penalties or liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime or premium pay." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XvyrGw at no extra charge.[CC] BAUSCH HEALTH: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $300 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- The Pharma Letter reports that court filings show that Canada-headquartered Bausch Health (TSX: BHC) has agreed to pay $300 million to settle an antitrust suit related to diabetes med Glumetza (metformin hydrochloride). The class action suit accused the firm of keeping a monopoly on the therapy by paying off competitors, thereby enabling an eight-fold price increase in 2015. First sold by Assertio Therapeutics (Nasdaq: ASRT), Glumetza is an extended-release formulation of the common diabetes therapy metformin. Bausch, which was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals, picked up the treatment subsequently. The antitrust case was initiated in 2019. The legal arguments center around the role of Indian drugmaker Lupin Pharmaceuticals, which created a generic version of the treatment and was set to launch in 2012, but agreed to delay until 2016. This so-called "pay-for-delay" deal enabled Bausch to retain market exclusivity for a period, increasing the price from under $6 to over $50, and taking in over a billion dollars in revenue. In May, a US District Court judge ruled that both Lupin and Assertio should also face trial over the claims, with Assertio later settling for an undisclosed sum. Lupin is due in court in October. Lawyers in the class action suit, which was brought by consumers of the product, say they are content with the settlement and have requested that a Californian District Court approve it. [GN] BERLIN SKIN: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berlin Skin, LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Berlin Skin, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-07720 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Berlin Skin -- https://www.berlinskin.com/ -- offers clean, natural skin care for the modern minimalist.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com BOB DEAN: Nursing Home Residents File Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Chris McCrory, writing for WWL, reports that four nursing home residents and their representatives have filed a class-action lawsuit against real-estate mogul Bob Dean and the seven nursing homes he owns over the conditions at a warehouse in Independence, La. where they were brought ahead of Hurricane Ida. Conditions in the warehouse were described as nightmarish, with residents crying out for help while lying on mattresses on the ground, in their own filth and without air conditioning, for days. At least seven of those residents have died since Aug. 27, when the first of them were brought to the facility. More than a dozen were hospitalized for problems incurred there. According to the lawsuit filed on Sept. 6 in Jefferson Parish, "it is likely that additional deaths and hospitalizations of residents will occur as a direct and proximate result" of being in the warehouse. Despite the seven nursing homes' evacuation plans being cleared by the Louisiana Department of Health, the residents claim in the lawsuit that the warehouse, known as the Waterbury Building, was ill-equipped to handle anywhere close to the number of people who arrived -- especially given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. LDH rescued 843 residents from the facility on Sept. 1 and 2, days after the storm had passed. In the five days between when the first residents began arriving and when LDH took over the facility and began evacuating them to shelters across the state, dozens of 9-1-1 calls came in from residents and staff members. "As residents began to arrive, it was immediately clear there was insufficient space and beds for the large and excessive number of residents that (Dean) chose to evacuate to the Waterbury Building," the lawsuit contends. "As a result, some residents were forced to sleep in their wheelchairs or other chairs they could find. Some residents were forced to sleep on, or at least lie down on, the concrete floors." If you have a loved one who was at this facility or worked there yourself, we would like to talk with you. Email cmccrory@wwltv.com or text 504-641-3471. According to both interviews with the people inside and the legal documents filed on their behalf, there were simply not enough nurses and other staff members to care for more than 800 seniors. And the troubles only compounded after the storm. One of the buildings where they were housing some of the residents flooded as Ida passed overhead "Due to the water intrusion, a number of residents were on mattresses that began to float in the water," according to the lawsuit. Terrified seniors were then taken to other areas in the facility and crammed into already cramped and privacy-absent rooms with hundreds of others in putrid conditions. "The (smells) emanating from the port-a-lets became putrid, to the point that staff members and residents alike would uncontrollably vomit and heave when sensing the odors, noxious vapors and fumes off-gassing in the area," the lawsuit contents. Photos embedded in the legal document show piles of trash on the ground outside the warehouse, as well as a sea of mattresses on the floor with little room between them. Scenes from the Independence warehouse where residents claim nightmarish conditions A separate video obtained by WWL-TV shows water pouring in and soaking mattresses. Residents and nursing home staff say this was part of the flooding that forced the hasty evacuation of part of the facility into other wings. In a phone interview with our partners at the Times-Picayune | New Orleans Advocate, Bob Dean defended his company's actions and downplayed the deaths at the facility. "I usually lose two to three people a day that pass on. So that four out of the five that passed in fact were hospice patients. Which you know are people who are on their way out," Dean said during the call. He also defended the decision to cram more than 800 seniors into a leaky and poorly equipped warehouse in Independence that he owns. "In a contained open area we actually can give better care because you can see everyone," Dean said. The state of Louisiana has already yanked the licenses for the seven nursing homes, meaning they will not be able to bring residents back after the storm or admit any new patients. The legal fallout from the deadly Independence situation is likely just beginning, with other families likely to file lawsuits in the coming days. State officials including Gov. John Bel Edwards and Attorney General Jeff Landry have called for thorough investigations into how the situation was allowed and how it could have deteriorated so quickly. [GN] BOSTON BEER: Robbins Geller Reminds of November 15 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of The Boston Beer Company, Inc. (NYSE: SAM) securities between April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until November 15, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The Boston Beer class action lawsuit charges Boston Beer and certain of its top executives and a director with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Boston Beer class action lawsuit (Siegel v. The Boston Beer Company, Inc., No. 21-cv-07693) was commenced on September 14, 2021 in the Southern District of New York. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Boston Beer class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Boston Beer class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 15, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Boston Beer class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales were decelerating; (ii) as a result, Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur inventory write-offs; (iii) Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third-party brewers; (iv) consequently, Boston Beer's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (v) thus, defendants' positive statements about Boston Beer's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On July 22, 2021, Boston Beer reduced its full year 2021 guidance, expecting earnings per share between $18 and $22, down from a prior range of $22 and $26. In doing so, Boston Beer cited softer-than-expected sales in the hard seltzer category and overall beer industry and also stated that it had "overestimated the growth of the hard seltzer category in the second quarter." On this news, Boston Beer's share price fell 26%. Then, on September 8, 2021, Boston Beer withdrew its 2021 financial guidance, citing decelerating sales of hard seltzer products. Boston Beer also stated that it "expects to incur hard seltzer-related inventory write-offs, shortfall fees payable to 3rd party brewers, and other costs" for the remainder of fiscal 2021. On this news, Boston Beer's share price fell an additional 3.7%, further damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Boston Beer securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Boston Beer class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Boston Beer class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Boston Beer class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Boston Beer class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. About Robbins Geller With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN] BOSTON BEER: Thornton Law Reminds of November 15 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased The Boston Beer Company, Inc. securities (NYSE:SAM) between April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021 may seek to participate in the case as a Lead Plaintiff. Interested investors may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/BostonBeer for more information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of SAM. Investors do not need to be the Lead Plaintiff to recover as class members if the case is successful. The case alleges that Boston Beer and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i) Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales were decelerating; (ii) as a result, Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur inventory write-offs; (iii) Boston Beer was reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third party brewers; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Boston Beer's financial results would be adversely impacted. Interested Boston Beer investors have until November 15, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a lead plaintiff. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] BOUGHTMILK.COM: Settlement Reached in Price Fixing Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Reynolds, writing for KY3, reports that it pays to watch KY3′s On Your Side. Back in 2017, Ashley Reynolds reported on a class action lawsuit titled BoughtMilk.com. If you filed a claim, check your email. Money is on the way. It's a settlement against milk producers over price-fixing. Missouri is one of the states included in the $52-million settlement. Melissa Inman in Cassville watches On Your Side. She's now $7 richer. "I kind of like to go off your leads," said Melissa Inman. "I don't usually sign-up for things that I'm not for sure." You can no longer file a claim in this case. Remember, be careful when signing up for these class action settlements. Make sure it's a legit lawsuit. Workers at SeniorAge say It can be tricky. "The problem with a lot of the class action lawsuits is that the promise that they offer, to seniors or to whomever, is the same end or promise that scammers and fraudulent people offer," said Alex Cobb with SeniorAge. "It's kind of the the promise of free money." Never give your social security number. "I just gave my email address. That was it," said Inman. Before you give any personal info, run it by someone you trust. Remember this process takes years. Be leery of quick cash offers. According to court documents, digital payments for this case will go out starting at the end of the month. [GN] BRAD LITTLE: Veenstra Files Suit in D. Idaho -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brad Little, et al. The case is styled as Albert Pete Veenstra, III, Kent Ellis, Charles Lynn Sacolick, Allen Brandt, Tony Garren, Hunter Smith, Weston Allen, Ruben Garzia, Shane Striker, William Canite, Joshae Patterson, Erineo Garza, Jose Cuevas, Hans Kruger, James Elkins, Frank Alesi, Matthew Smith, Steve Brown, Jason Homburg, Mario Garcia, Christopher Pielstick, Clarence Meeks, Alex Watanabe, David Hoots, Ryan Hale, Kim Firouzbakhah, Nathak Knutson, Acencion Hernandez, Christopher Ostergar, Daniel Perkins, Dennis Reed, Tyrell McKnight, and all those similarly situated under the care, custody and control of the IDOC or the Idaho Department of Probation and Parole v. Brad Little, as Governor of the State of Idaho, in official Capacity; Idaho State Board of Correction Members, in their official capacities; Director IDOC Josh Tewalt, in his official capacity; Alberto Ramirez, in His Official Capacity; Idaho Dept. of Probation and Parole; Commission of Pardon and Parole; State of Idaho; Case No. 1:21-cv-00341-DCN (D. Idaho, Sept. 15, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Bradley Jay Little -- http://www.bradlittleforidaho.com/-- is an American politician serving as the 33rd governor of Idaho since January 2019.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. BRECKENRIDGE GRAND: FLSA Collective Action Gets Conditional Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR MCMAHON v. BRECKENRIDGE GRAND VACATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00754-CMA-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Christine M. Arguello entered an order -- granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and to Facilitate Notice; -- conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action of the following individuals: "all current and former sales personnel of Defendant working anywhere in the United States between three years prior to the date the Complaint was filed and the present;" -- authorizing the Plaintiff to submit his proposed notice plan to the Court for review within fourteen days of the date of entry of this Order; and -- directing thre Defendant to provide thr Plaintiff with a list of contact information for individuals within 14 days of the date of entry of this Order. The Court finds that Plaintiff has carried his minimal initial burden to demonstrate that class treatment is appropriate at this stage in this case. Mr. McMahon, worked for Defendant as a "sales broker," assisting clients purchasing ownership interests in one o more of Defendant's properties, beginning at some time between 1997 and 1999. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant incorrectly classified him as an independent contractor rather than an employee, and that Defendant failed to pay him overtime wages and other benefits throughout his employment. The Plaintiff also alleges that other workers classified as in independent contractors by the Defendant may be similarly situated to him. Breckenridge operates four shared ownership, or "timeshare," properties in Breckenridge, Colorado. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lBN5nN at no extra charge.[CC] BUTTERBALL LLC: Federal Judge Tossed Poultry Workers' Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- bloomberglaw.com reports that Butterball LLC won't have to face a proposed class action alleging it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina wage law by failing to pay the correct overtime wage to certain workers at its poultry processing plants, a federal judge ruled. Osvaldo Figueroa, who caught and loaded turkeys onto trucks that transported them to the slaughterhouse, submitted paystubs showing he was paid $12 per truckload plus $8.96 per hour worked beyond 40 per week. But these paystubs directly refute Figueroa's claim that Butterball owed him a higher overtime rate because they reflect a piece-rate, not hourly, pay scheme. [GN] C PEPPER: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Filling Set for May 3, 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID FLINN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC, LANTER DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, and JAMES PEPPER, Case No. 2:20-cv-02215-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth G. Gale entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline/Setting -- Supplementation of initial 40 days before completion disclosures of discovery -- All pre-certification May 3, 2022 discovery completed -- Experts (used in December 9, 2021 pre-certification discovery) disclosed by plaintiff -- Experts (used in January 24, 2022 pre-certification discovery) disclosed by defendant -- Rebuttal experts (used in February 21, 2022 pre-certification discovery) disclosed -- Motion for class certification May 3, 2022 C Pepper Logistics was founded in 2009. The Company's line of business includes provides trucking and transfer services. Lanter Delivery provides transportation and courier services to the Agricultural, Automotive and Trucking Industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XrZ8fw at no extra charge.[CC] CANADA: Faces Equitas Society Suit Over Unfair Pension Reforms -------------------------------------------------------------- Equitas Society, the national veterans' organization which in 2011 sued the federal government over pension reforms which have negatively affected Canadian veterans, is calling on all federal leaders to commit to the Canadian Military Covenant and the Military Bill of Rights that was promised in parliament in 2015. The Covenant and Bill of Rights are important pieces of legislation that will help address the shameful conditions faced by permanently disabled veterans and their families, as well as the families of the men and women that sacrificed their lives in the service of their country. Without the Covenant and Bill of Rights, veterans across Canada will continue to face: -- Multi-year wait times to have their disability claims processed. -- Inadequate suicide prevention support and strategies. -- Inadequate support for homeless veterans. -- Time-consuming and inefficient paperwork applications instead of online processes. -- Doctors reluctant to take on veteran patients because of massive paperwork involved; and -- Little support for transitioning back to civilian life. To date, the Conservative Party of Canada leader Erin O'Toole and People's Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier have signed the pledge to enact the Covenant and the Bill of Rights in the next parliament. The teams of every other federal party leader have received pledge documents from Equitas Society, but none have yet signed on. This includes NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, Green leader Annamie Paul, Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-François Blanchet, and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, whose party reneged on a promise in 2015 to enact pensions for veterans. "Canada needs to take better care and show more respect for the men and women that put their lives in danger and make tremendous sacrifices to serve our country," says Major (Ret'd.) Mark Campbell, wounded in Afghanistan in 2008. "The Canadian Military Covenant and the Military Bill of Rights will help make that possible and show our veterans that we stand behind them just as strongly as they stand up for us. We call on each party leader to demonstrate their commitment to Canada's veterans by signing the pledge and enacting this important legislation." The call for a Canadian Military Covenant and the Military Bill of Rights stemmed from the Equitas Society's unsuccessful six-year legal battle with the federal government to secure better disability benefits for returning soldiers of the Afghan War. The feedback from the courts throughout the legal process was that parliament needs to pass legislation to secure the support for the Canadian armed forces sought by Equitas Society. In May 2015, a House of Commons motion regarding the Canadian Military Covenant and the Military Bill of Rights passed unanimously, stating: "That, in the opinion of the House, a standalone covenant of moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people and the government to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependents, which the government is obligated to fulfil." Six years later, the men and women of Canada's armed forces, their families, and veterans across Canada, are still waiting for Canada's political parties to honour their sacrifices by enacting this promised legislation. For more information, and to view the proposed Military Covenant and the Military Bill of Rights, please visit www.equitassociety.ca About the Equitas Society (Equitas) Equitas was formed in 2011 to support a class-action lawsuit against the Government of Canada for the reinstatement of the Pension Act Pension for injured soldiers returning from the Afghan War. Though the court case was ultimately lost, Equitas has not wavered in its resolve to achieve the restoration of veterans' benefits and rights. Equitas is continually moving forward to have a Canadian Military Covenant and a Military Bill of Rights enshrined in Canadian Law and are seeking this action via a political solution. For more information, visit www.equitassociety.ca For further information: Jim Scott, President, Equitas Society, 604-230-0585, jim.scott@shaw.ca [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Stop-and-Frisk Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status --------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Williams, writing for The Hill, reports that an Illinois federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit against the city of Chicago over the police department's stop-and-frisk policies. U.S. District Court Judge Andrea Wood orally ruled on Aug. 31 that the motion for class-action certification was granted, law firms representing the plaintiffs said in a statement on Sept. 7. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2015, argued that the Chicago Police Department (CPD) used the practice to disproportionately stop and search members of minority groups. It also alleged that the practice violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The attorneys say the CPD directed offers to certain neighborhoods to stop "the right people" and "put your hands on them" without regard to whether there was a basis to stop them. In their statement, the attorneys said they filed the suit after it was revealed that Chicago police officers conducted over 250,000 stops over four months in 2015. These stops were mainly of Black residents and visitors, and none of them led to arrests. In her ruling, Wood said that the plaintiffs were able to show that the city should have known that the program was associated with "widespread Fourth Amendment violations," noting that data from the police department showed "a continuing (and worsening) pattern of unconstitutional stops." "Moreover, Plaintiffs have adduced evidence that CPD's response to this problem actually facilitated the coverup of unconstitutional stops, as evidenced by supervisors providing false information to officers to give stops the appearance of constitutionality," Woods wrote. Antonio Romanucci, one of the plaintiffs in the case, called the decision a "landmark ruling in the city of Chicago." "When you see the disparate nature of the stops that overwhelmingly targeted Black and Hispanic men, and you add up the sheer number of stops over the years -- well above 2 million -- it is clear to see how the community trust in police has eroded to where it is today," Romanucci said. The complaint names the city, former Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy and numerous individual CPD officers as defendants. Chicago's Department of Law, which provides legal counsel for the city, told The Hill "the City does not comment on ongoing litigation." [GN] CLARK HILL: Matthew Marshall Secures Summary Judgment in Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew L. Marshall at clarkhill.com reports that San Diego Member Matthew Marshall recently secured a summary judgment ruling for his client in a national class action case involving a dietary supplement that contained an ingredient supplied by his client. Initially filed in 2016, plaintiffs asserted 13 causes of action, including fraud, false advertising, and negligent misrepresentation against Marshall's client, another ingredient supplier, the manufacturer of the supplement, and a famous television personality. The plaintiffs alleged that the television show promoted the two ingredients in question for their weight-loss properties, and to look certain statements on the labels of the supplement products that contained the ingredients. "These types of claims are not atypical and are usually targeted at the manufacturer, who labels and sells the products, and are based on the contention that the products are ineffective at what they purport to do," Marshall said. "In this case, plaintiffs also tried to rope in our client who merely supplied the ingredient but who was not responsible for what the manufacturer said on the label regarding the effectiveness of the product." When the plaintiffs found and purchased supplements containing these ingredients, they claimed the products were ineffective and thus the statements made on the product's label were false and misleading as they related to the two weight-loss ingredients. Marshall's client supplies a propriety version of hydroxycitric acid, which is marketed as an appetite suppressant and is an extract derived from the tropical fruit garcinia cambogia. However, the client did not manufacture, sell, label, or advertise the finished product that contained its ingredient and which was the subject of the litigation. A primary allegation against Marshall's client was that it colluded with the television show to feature the benefits of the garcinia cambogia ingredient, and, that it further aided and abetted, if not controlled the content of the labeling on the finished garcinia cambogia product that the plaintiffs contended that they purchased. The court found the show had no relationship with Marshall's client in regard to the content of the episode of the show that featured and promoted garcinia cambogia, and that the show or the personality never received any compensation from the client for broadcasting this episode. The episode never mentioned the brand name of the client's proprietary version of the ingredient. Finally, the episode had aired several months before the client even began supplying the ingredient to the manufacturer of the product that the plaintiffs claim they purchased. The court also found that the undisputed evidence established that the contract between Marshall's client and the product manufacturer prevented Marshall's client from having any control over the claims made on the product label. A trademark licensing agreement permitted Marshall's client to control the depiction of its ingredient and logo on the product label, but the ability to control the content of the labeling of the product and its efficacy claims remained with the manufacturer. The court relied heavily on the fact that while Marshall's client later approved of the portrayal of its trademarked material, it had explicitly noted that the approval was entirely without responsibility for the content of the labeling on the product, including the efficacy claims on which the plaintiffs claimed they relied. The manufacturer admitted that it had designed the product label on its own and that its research and development team decided which efficacy claims to place on the label. Final Rulings Among the three plaintiffs named as putative class members, two were found to have never purchased the garcinia cambogia product in question, and the third who did purchase the product didn't do so until eight months after she watched the television show featuring the ingredient of Marshall's client. In the case involving the third plaintiff, the court found that Marshall's client exercised no control over the content of the labeling claims on which the plaintiff claims she relied. This was confirmed by the terms of the trademark licensing agreement between the ingredient supplier and the manufacturer and in later correspondence between the two entities. [GN] CLEAR CUT: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Nisbett Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR CUT PHOCUS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-07458-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2021) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its Website, http://www.drinkphocus.com/,and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant is an online retailer of caffeinated and vitamin enhanced seltzer designed to increase energy and attention without the deleterious side effects of coffee or energy drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $95MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that shareholders accused Cognizant of failing to disclose payments made to obtain permits for facilities in 'special economic zones,' including its Indian headquarters in Chennai, where it could enjoy tax and other benefits Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp has reached a $95 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit accusing the information technology services company of defrauding shareholders by concealing bribes to officials in India. A preliminary settlement of the proposed class action was filed on Sept. 7 with the federal court in Newark, New Jersey, and requires a judge's approval. Shareholders accused Cognizant of failing to disclose payments made to obtain permits for facilities in "special economic zones," including its Indian headquarters in Chennai, where it could enjoy tax and other benefits. Cognizant's share price fell 13.3% on Sept. 30, 2016, after the Teaneck, New Jersey-based company said it was looking into bribery allegations, and whether there were violations of the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The defendants, including former president Gordon Coburn and former chief legal officer Steven Schwartz, denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. Cognizant said it expected insurers to cover a substantial majority of the settlement payment. In February 2019, Cognizant agreed to pay $25 million to settle a related U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission civil probe. U.S. prosecutors also charged Coburn and Schwartz that month with FCPA and other violations. Those criminal cases remain pending. Lawyers for Coburn and Schwartz did not immediately respond on Sept. 8 to requests for comment. [GN] COLLECTABLE SPORTS: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTABLE SPORTS ASSETS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05026-LDH-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its Website, www.collectable.com, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant is an online platform for fractional investing in sports memorabilia. Through the Website, customers can buy and sell shares of high value sports collectables, including signed jerseys, bats, trading cards, game worn sneakers, and similar items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com COLORADO: Faces Medicaid Child Mental Health Care Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Colorado Sun reports that Colorado has lapsed on its obligation to provide mental health care for needy children, leaving them to cycle in and out of emergency rooms instead of receiving appropriate long-term care, according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed against the state Medicaid program. The lawsuit so far includes three anonymous plaintiffs, all teenagers who have for months or years been checked into hospital emergency rooms and psychiatric facilities but then refused step-down residential treatment because no beds are available. The case is similar to major lawsuits filed in other states, including Illinois, which was forced to revamp its mental health system for children in a 2018 settlement. "Colorado needs a comprehensive mental health plan of care for these children, and there are significant gaps and missing links that need to be rectified," said Robert Farley, the attorney handling the Colorado case who also successfully sued Illinois. "These children have legal rights to get the necessary services." The three plaintiffs, identified only as A.A, B.B. and C.C., should have received intensive mental health services in their communities -- an entitlement under federal law for children on Medicaid government insurance, according to the lawsuit filed on Sept. 3 that seeks class-action status to represent other children who have not received needed treatment. The children have been unfairly "institutionalized," it alleges. One is a 13-year-old Northglenn boy who has been hospitalized at Children's Hospital Colorado since March because the state has refused to pay for a less-restrictive residential treatment center. The teen, who has reactive attachment disorder and other mental health issues, remains hospitalized due to the lack of other options, according to the lawsuit. Another is a 16-year-old Castle Rock girl who has been in the emergency department at Children's Hospital hospital since July 31. The state has been unable to find a long-term residential program, despite looking out of state, according to the lawsuit. The teen, who is suicidal and has post-traumatic stress disorder and reactive attachment disorder, has been admitted to an emergency room 17 times because of her mental health struggles. The child, who has busted open her head by banging it on the wall and tied sheets around her neck, has had to rely on emergency treatment while in crisis instead of receiving long-term care that would improve her mental health, according to the lawsuit. The third plaintiff is a 13-year-old Aurora girl diagnosed with major depression and an anxiety disorder who has been hospitalized three times. She's living at home but needs to go to a residential treatment center, which the state has not provided, according to the lawsuit. Under federal law, children who qualify for Medicaid are entitled to receive medically necessary mental health services through a program called "Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment Service." The goal of the lawsuit, which names Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Executive Director Kim Bimestefer, is to force Colorado to build a better spectrum of care so that children have more options other than emergency hospitalization, Farley said in an interview with The Colorado Sun. The state Department of Health Care Policy and Financing declined to comment, noting that it is against department policy to discuss pending litigation. The lawsuit comes at a pivotal time for Colorado, where suicide is the leading cause of death for young people and Children's Hospital Colorado recently sent up a flare for legislative help because its emergency room is crowded with suicidal and depressed kids and teens. About 2,300 children received intensive community-based services through the state Medicaid department's Children's Extensive Support Waiver program, but in order to qualify, children must have an intellectual or developmental disability. Similarly, 163 children received services through the state's Children's Residential Program, but to qualify, children had to have a diagnosed intellectual disability. The system is discriminatory, Farley alleged, when only certain children can qualify for residential care. Farley initiated the lawsuit after receiving various calls for help from families in Colorado, he said. The Illinois lawsuit, filed in 2011 and settled in 2018, was the impetus behind new programs going into place in 2022 in that state, including a uniform mental health assessment for children receiving Medicaid. Children in Illinois will be assigned a mental health care coordinator, who will work with a handful of kids and teens at a time to make sure they receive proper care. "You just can't flip a switch overnight and create a mental health system for children," Farley said, explaining that any changes ahead for Colorado are likely to take years. In many states, mental health treatment for children is so inadequate that families get to the point that the only safe place they can find for their child is a psychiatric hospital, he said. Each time their child is stabilized and released, the options for step-down programs, such as day treatment or residential centers, are "slim to none," Farley said, so the child goes home until the next emergency rush to a psychiatric facility. The situation gets so dire that some families eventually refuse to take their children home, which results in the hospital calling child welfare authorities. Under the custody of the child protection division, children receive placement in a residential treatment facility. "It gets to the point where families become desperate," Farley said. "They don't see hope. They don't see progress. They get to the point where we have to do something." Farley said he knows many kids, not just his 16-year-old Colorado client, who have had more than a dozen visits to the emergency room for psychiatric problems. "That's not an unusual situation," he said. "It's not just somebody falling through the cracks. If you've had to go to the emergency room 17 times, something is not working." In some cases, children are adopted from the foster care system and have severe mental disorders related to early childhood trauma, Farley said. Their adoptive parents struggle to get them help, despite having Medicaid coverage. Residential programs, which cost about $700 or even $900 per day, have been shrinking in Colorado, leaving families and the state to seek beds out of state. Colorado needs to boost its options along the mental health treatment spectrum, including better in-home programs and community programs with the aim of keeping kids out of residential centers and hospitals, Farley said. In May, Children's Hospital Colorado declared a "pediatric mental health state of emergency" and said its emergency rooms were overwhelmed by children in psychiatric crisis. Mental health emergency room visits were up 90% in April compared with April 2019 and the hospital reported seeing three or four kids each week who had just attempted suicide. It's unclear whether Colorado's latest plans to improve mental health for children will factor into the case. A year ago, Gov. Jared Polis announced a plan to create a centralized office for mental health -- called the Behavioral Health Administration -- to replace the splintered system that includes 75 programs spread across three state agencies. The state's suicide prevention office is part of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, yet crisis services -- including 24-hour, walk-in services for mental health -- are overseen by the Colorado Department of Human Services. Substance abuse programs are housed within the human services department, but many are funded by state Health Care Policy and Financing. The change was the recommendation of a 27-member task force of mental health experts and local government officials. The lawsuit names only the department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which houses the Medicaid department. California and Massachusetts were also ordered to enhance their mental health programs after lawsuits like the one that spurred change in Illinois. The Illinois settlement impacted an estimated 30,000 children and hundreds of millions of dollars in new services. [GN] CORVIAS GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Page Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE PAGE, et al., v. CORVIAS GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00336-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss; 2. denying the defendants' motion to strike; 3. granting the plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice; and 4. granting the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record. The Court said, "Defendants move to strike plaintiffs' class allegations. A motion to strike a complaint's class allegations under Rule 12(f) should be granted when it is clear from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's requirements for certification because the plaintiff has failed to properly allege facts sufficient to make out a class. Generally, however, courts do not strike class allegations at the pleadings stage but instead allow for pre-certification discovery before making a certification decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1). On August 31, 2020, Staff Sergeant Shane Page and Brittany Page, Specialist Spenser Ganske and Emily Ganske, Sergeant First Class Christopher Wilkes and Ashley Wilkes, and Corporal Timothy Murphy and Katelyn Murphy filed an amended class action complaint against the defendants. The Plaintiffs allege claims under North Carolina law for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, temporary recurrent private nuisance, violations of the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act, and (6) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCT9Py at no extra charge.[CC] CRST INT'L: Markson Suit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS MARKSON, MARK MCGEORGE, CLOIS MCCLENDON, and ERIC CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., CRST EXPEDITED, INC., C.R. ENGLAND, INC., WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., SOUTHERN REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT, INC., COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC., PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC., and DOES 1-10, Case No. 5:17-cv-01261-SB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for certifying a class regarding plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim defined as follows: "All current or former drivers "under contract" as motor vehicle carrier drivers employed by defendants CRST International, Inc., CRST Expedited, Inc., C.R. England, Inc., or Stevens Transport, Inc. during the Class Period (the "Antitrust Class")." The Plaintiffs further move for an order certifying a subclass for purposes of plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim comprised of: "all class members that resided in the state of California at any time while "under contract" with one of the defendants during the Class Period (the "California Antitrust Subclass"). The term "under contract" is defined to mean all current and former drivers who executed an agreement with defendants to work for any of the defendants for a specified period of time in return for training provided by, funded by, or reimbursed by that defendant. The "Class Period" refers to the period: (a) from May 15, 2013 to the date of the Court's class certification order for class members employed by CRST International, Inc., CRST Expedited, Inc., or C.R. England, Inc.; and (b) from April 15, 2015 to the date of the Court's class certification order for class members 24 employed by Stevens Transport, Inc. Excluded from the Class and Subclass are officers, directors, senior executives and personnel in the human resources or recruiting departments of the Defendants; and any and all judges and justices, and chambers' staff, assigned to hear or adjudicate any aspect of this litigation. The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint them as class representatives for the Antitrust Class and the California Antitrust Subclass. The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Mayall Hurley P.C., Ackermann and Tilajef, P.C., and Melmed Law Group P.C. as class counsel for the Antitrust Class and the California Antitrust Subclass. CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a privately held company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks and annual revenues of $1.5 billion. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ak7kwl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Rohit D. Nath, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com rnath@susmangodfrey.com - and - Matthew R. Berry, Esq. Ian M. Gore, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com igore@susmangodfrey.com - and - Robert J. Wasserman, Esq. William J. Gorham, Esq. Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq. Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, California 95207 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com wgorham@mayallaw.com nscardigli@mayallaw.com vjkozina@mayallaw.com - and - Johnathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, California 90035 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com - and - Craig J. Ackerman, Esq. ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Tarrify Appeals Class Certification Bid Denial ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tarrify Properties, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit captioned as TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293-JG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Tarrify sued the Defendant Cuyahoga County on October 31, 2019, claiming that Cuyahoga County violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause by seizing Tarrify's Cleveland property without compensating Tarrify for any value above Tarrify's $35,000 property tax debt. On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class of: "Cuyahoga County residents whose property the County has seized to satisfy County property tax debts where those tax debts were less than the seized property's value." On December 21, 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' class certification motion, finding, as many Courts have, that tax valuations are inadmissible to show fair market property value for non-tax purposes. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this ruling. The appellate case is captioned as Tarrify Properties, LLC, et al. v. Cuyahoga County, OH, Case No. 21-3801, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Sept. 8, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com Defendant-Appellee CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH is represented by: Emily K. Anglewicz, Esq. Stephen W. Funk, Esq. ROETZEL & ANDRESS 222 S. Main Street, Suite 400 Akron, OH 44319 Telephone: (330) 376-2700 E-mail: eanglewicz@ralaw.com sfunk@ralaw.com - and - Adam D. Jutte, Esq. CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 310 W. Lakeside Avenue, Suite 300 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 443-8146 E-mail: ajutte@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us - and - David G. Lambert, Esq. CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 1200 Ontario Street, Eighth Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 443-5869 E-mail: dlambert@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Hechler Suit Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- CORY HECHLER; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIDI GLOBAL INC. F/K/A XIAOJU KUAIZHI INC.; WILL WEI CHENG; ALAN YUE ZHUO; JEAN QING LIU; STEPHEN JINGSHI ZHU; ZHIYI CHEN; MARTIN CHI PING LAU; KENTARO MATSUI; ADRIAN PERICA; DANIEL YONG ZHANG; GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C.; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BOFA SECURITIES; INC.; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED; CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; GUOTAI JUNAN SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED; HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC.; UBS SECURITIES LLC; BOCCI ASIA LIMITED; BOCOM INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LIMITED; CCB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED; CLSA LIMITED; CMB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED; FUTU INC.; ICBC INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LIMITED; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC; and TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07550 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi: (a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering") and (b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive, seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants in accordance with the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). According to the complaint, on June 30, 2021, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which was incorporated into the Registration Statement. In its IPO, the Company sold approximately 316,800,000 shares priced at $14 per share. Four (4) ADSs represent one (1) DiDi Class A ordinary share. The Company was paid approximately $4,331.6 million for the shares after underwriting discounts and commissions. On Sunday, July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published its report that three months prior to the IPO the CAC advised DiDi to postpone its IPO due to PRC security concerns. On Monday, July 6, 2021, the market price of DiDi shares plummeted $3.04 per share, or 19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on heavy trading volume of 225.5 million shares. The market price of DiDi shares has never recovered. As of August 19, 2021, the price of DiDi shares had fallen to $7.43, about 47% below the $14.00 IPO price. Allegedly, the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of personal information within the PRC; (2) that prior to the IPO DiDi was advised by the CAC to postpone its IPO because of its collection and storage of personal information of its users in violation of PRC law; (3) that enforcement of PRC law would have a material adverse effect on its financial results and operations going forward; and (4) Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. DIDI GLOBAL INC. provides mobility solutions, cloud computing, and other application based services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com DISCOUNT POWER: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discount Power, Inc. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Discount Power, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01223-VAB (D. Conn., Sept. 14, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Discount Power, Inc. -- https://discountpower.com/ -- offers residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers with a comprehensive suite of electric energy alternatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com EAST COAST MOVING: Faces Douglas Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Seron Douglas, and Gilbert Augustin, Jr., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiffs v. East Coast Moving Inc., Extreme Van Line Inc., and Edna Seltzer, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05033 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours, unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. Mr. Douglas was employed as a mover and manual laborer at the Defendants' moving company from May 18, 2021 through and including September 31, 2021. The Corporate Defendants are moving companies based in Queens, New York. Ms. Seltzer is the owner, officer and/or agent of the Corporate Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Snyder Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC d/b/a ERC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-07417 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent a collection letter to him on or about July 29, 2021 in an attempt to collect an alleged debt incurred to the creditor, TD Bank USA, N.A./Nordstrom, Inc. He claims that the Defendant's letter confused him because it failed to accurately inform him that the amount of the debt stated in the Letter will increase over time, thus misstating the total amount and character of debt owed. In addition, the Defendant did not offer him a settlement offer and confirmed there was "no payment arrangement currently on file." The Defendant also failed to clearly state that the holder of the debt will accept payment in the amount set forth in full satisfaction of the debt if payment is made by a specified date, the Plaintiff added. As a result of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff incurred an informational injury. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 122 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com FABFITFUN INC: Settles Suit for $625K for Alleged Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------------------- FabFitFun, a fashion and beauty subscription service, settled claims that it failed to adequately protect and secure consumer data resulting in a data breach for a sum of $625,000 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In addition to agreeing to the monetary settlement, FabFitFun agreed to implement security measures, including engaging a third-party cybersecurity forensic vendor to conduct a risk assessment, offer multi-factor authentication for customers to access their accounts, and hire additional security and technical personnel to assist in building a more robust data privacy and security program for the company. Plaintiff Cheryl Gaston sued FabFitFun in October 2020, alleging that the company failed to protect its customers' data against hacker data scraping that compromised payment card information. The settlement class includes 441,000 consumers; the deadline for individuals to opt-out of the settlement was June 16, 2021. To date, the claims administrator has not received any objections and only five (5) opt-out requests.[GN] FARMERS GROUP: Faces Stallone Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- RONALD STALLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01659 (D. Nev., Sept. 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, between January 20, 2021, and February 12, 2021, "unknown malicious actors targeted the Farmers Auto quoting system to obtain various individuals' personal information." The Defendants state they are still investigating "exactly how this occurred." But, at a minimum, between at least January 20, 2021, and February 12, 2021, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' driver's license numbers were stolen by malicious actors, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal information has been exposed to, and stolen by, those who should not have access to it. The Plaintiff and the Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and for cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly valuable and sought–after PI stolen here. Farmers Group, Inc. operates as an insurance management and holding company. The Company manages an auto and home insurer, and a property and casualty insurance group. Farmers is also a commercial insurer and operates a life insurance subsidiary. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Kind, Esq. KIND LAW FIRM 8860 S. Maryland Parkway, Suite 106 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 337-2322 Facsimile: (702) 329-5881 E-mail: Mk@kindlaw.com -and- Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. gmb@cglaw.com CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 FCA US: Bledsoe Seeks Certification of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware corporation, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-14024-TGB-RSW (E.D. Mich), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and 2. appointing their Counsel Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; The Miller Law Firm P.C.; Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.; and Seeger Weiss LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 3. appointing them as Class Representatives pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Specifically, the Plaintiffs propose certification of the following Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): -- Nationwide Class (RICO and breach of contract claims): "All persons whopurchased a Class Vehicle in the United States from an FCA-authorized dealer or distributor"; -- California Class (consumer protection and fraudulent concealment claims) "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA- authorized dealer or distributor in California;" -- Idaho Class (consumer protection and fraudulent concealment claims) "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA- authorized dealer or distributor in Idaho;" -- Illinois Class (consumer protection and fraudulent concealment claims) "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA- authorized dealer or distributor in Illinois;" -- Michigan Class (consumer protection and fraudulent concealment claims "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA- authorized dealer or distributor in Michigan;" -- New Mexico Class (consumer protection and fraudulent concealment claims) "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA- authorized dealer or distributor in New Mexico;" -- North Carolina Class (consumer protection and fraudulent concealment claims) "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA- authorized dealer or distributor in North Carolina;" -- South Carolina Class (fraudulent concealment claim) "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA- authorized dealer or distributor in South Carolina;" and -- Texas Class (consumer protection and fraudulent concealment claims) "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an FCA- authorized dealer or distributor in Texas." The Plaintiffs are James Bledsoe, Michael Erben, Dawn Roberts, Marc Ganz, Marty Witberg, Martin Ward, Jeremy Perdue, James Forshaw, and Paul Chouffet. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial van. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39beXJz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Dodge Hood Scoop Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Dodge class action lawsuit has been dismissed after the plaintiff didn't adequately plead the hood scoop was defective on 2018 Challenger SRT Demons. California plaintiff Brian Garlough purchased a 2018 Dodge Challenger SRT Demon in July 2018, and one of the features of the car is the 45-square-inch Air Grabber hood scoop. The Dodge class action lawsuit alleges Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) knew about the alleged hood scoop problems but concealed it from customers. By concealing the alleged hood scoop defects, Chrysler could continue to market and sell the expensive cars. According to the Dodge lawsuit, the hood scoop expands, contracts, warps and vibrates when the car is in motion. This allegedly chips, scrapes and cracks the original factory paint, causing damage to the car's hood. The Dodge class action lawsuit had already been partly dismissed, but the judge allowed the plaintiff to file a third amended lawsuit over the Demon hood scoops. Dodge Class Acttion Lawsuit Dismissed The plaintiff alleges FCA's advertisements said the hood scoop was the largest functional cold air intake hood. But the plaintiff contends this advertisement was false as the Demon hood scoop expands, contracts, warps and vibrates. This allegedly causes paint problems and damage which makes the hood scoop non-functional. But according to Judge John A. Mendez, "FCA's statements regarding the hood's general functionality are the kind of generalized, vague, and unspecific assertions that constitute non-actionable puffery." Under California law, statements that constitute mere puffery cannot be the basis for a fraud or negligent misrepresentation claim. As for damage to the paint, the judge says the plaintiff alleges a cosmetic issue with the hood and doesn't allege the defect renders the Dodge Demons incapable of use. Additionally, the judge says the plaintiff doesn't allege the damaged hoods cause an unreasonable safety hazard. "Because Plaintiff has alleged a cosmetic issue with the hood that does not render the car incapable of use or cause an unreasonable safety hazard, FCA had no duty to disclose the issue with the hood scoop." -- Judge Mendez In dismissing the Dodge class action lawsuit, the judge says the dismissal is with prejudice because the plaintiff has had three chances to amend the lawsuit. A similar lawsuit also alleged defects in the Dodge hoods, but the case (Peralta, v. FCA US LLC) was dismissed when the plaintiff didn't file a response to FCA's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Dodge class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California: Garlough, et al., FCA US LLC. The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Connor W. Olson. [GN] FILLMORE AND 5TH: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fillmore and 5th Designer Consignment Inc., et al. The case is styled as Meghan Downing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fillmore and 5th Designer Consignment Inc., a California corporation; Does 1 to 10 inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-07116-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fillmore & 5th consignment boutique -- https://www.fillmore5th.com/ -- specializes in highly coveted clothing and accessories for women at a fraction of the original retail price.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com FIVE9 INC: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Lawrence Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE9, INC.; MICHAEL BURDIEK; DAVID DEWALT; SUSAN BARSAMIAN; JACK ACOSTA; ROWAN TROLLOPE; DAVID WELSH; KIMBERLY ALEXY; MICHAEL BURKLAND; ROBERT ZOLLARS; and ANA PINCZUK, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-07002 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Five9, Inc. ("Five9" or the "Company") and the members of Five9's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Five9 will be acquired by Zoom Video Communications, Inc. ("Zoom") through Zoom's subsidiary Summer Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction"). According to the complaint, on July 18, 2021, Zoom and Five9 issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 16, 2021 (the "Merger Agreement") to acquire Five9. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Five9 stockholder will receive 0.5533 shares of Zoom Class A common stock for each share of Five9 common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $14.7 billion. On August 26, 2021, Five9 filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Five9 stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's financial projections; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners LP ("Qatalyst Partners"); and (iii) Qatalyst Partners' potential conflicts of interest. Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Unless remedied, Five9's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction. Five9, Inc. provides cloud contact center software. The Company offers real-time and historical reporting, recording, quality monitoring, workforce, and customer relationship management integrations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 725 E. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com -and- Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 FRUIT FUSION: State Automobile Files Suit in S.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fruit Fusion, Inc., et al. The case is styled as State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. Fruit Fusion, Inc., an Illinois corporation; Taylor Patt, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 3:21-cv-01132 (S.D. Ill., Sept. 14, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Fruit Fusion, Inc. is an Illinois corporation located in Belleville, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert M. Chemers, Esq. PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHARTERED One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 578-7548 Fax: (312) 346-8242 Email: rchemers@pretzelstouffer.com GENERAC POWER: Zimmer Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Generac Power Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Zimmer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated within the State of Louisiana v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01659-SM-DPC (E.D. La., Sept. 2, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Product Liability. Generac Holdings Inc., commonly referred to as Generac -- https://www.generac.com/ -- is a Fortune 1000 American manufacturer of backup power generation products for residential, light commercial and industrial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Preston Lee Hayes, Esq. Barry W Sartin , Jr, Esq. Ryan Paul Monsour, Esq. HMS, LLC 3850 N. Causeway Blvd, Suite 590 Metairie, LA 70002 Phone: (504) 356-0110 Fax: (504) 356-0112 Email: plh@hmsfirm.com bws@hmsfirm.com rpm@hmsfirm.com - and - David Winston Ardoin, Esq. ARDOIN, McKOWEN & ORY, LLC 114 Laura Dr., Suite D Thibodaux, LA 70301 Phone: (985) 446-3333 Email: david@amotriallawyers.com - and - Zachary Rhys Smith, Esq. 404 E Gibson St., Ste. 2b Covington, LA 70433 Phone: (985) 705-1143 Fax: (504) 356-0110 Email: zrs@hmsfirm.com GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Diaz Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 27, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, V. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02151-MCS-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marc C. Scarsi entered an order on the schedule of class certification dates as follows: Class Certification Date -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off April 8, 2022 -- Expert Disclosure (Initial) March 10, 2022 -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) April 8, 2022 -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off May 9, 2022 -- Deadline to File a Motion for Class Certification January 27, 2022 -- Deadline to File an Opposition February 17, 2022 to the Motion for Class Certification -- Deadline to File a Reply March 10, 2022 -- Hearing Date on Motion for March 28, 2022 For class actions, the Court will first set class certification dates and discovery dates. The Court will defer setting any other dates until class certification is resolved. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not bifurcate class discovery from merits discovery The Court orders the parties to make every effort to agree on dates, says Judge Scarsi. Georgia-Pacific is a corrugated box manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XyWIvm at no extra charge.[CC] GHRAY AREA: Faces Devivo Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------ COLLEEN DEVIVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GHRAY AREA HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a GRANTS FOR HOMEOWNERS, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-016931 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 7, 2021) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as it engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers including Plaintiff without having secured prior express written consent. According to the complaint, on August 6, 2021, the Defendant sent telephonic sales call to Plaintiffs cellular telephone number to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services. Allegedly, these telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance. Ghray Area Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Grants for Homeowners, is an online homeowner grant database.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. Garrett 0. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com GOHEALTH LLC: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Jordan Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GoHealth, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04736 (N.D. Ill., September 3, 2021), seeks to recover compensation for overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, interest and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. GoHealth is a health insurance marketplace and Medicare-focused digital health company. Jordan performed work and was employed at GoHealth's offices and facilities as a Customer Service Representative or Member Services Agent from approximately February 1, 2019 to the present. She claims that GoHealth paid her only one and one-half times her base hourly wage as overtime compensation and GoHealth did not include her nondiscretionary bonus pay as part of her regular rate of pay for the purpose of computing overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176, (216) 395-4226 Email: cliff@bswages.com GOLD COAST: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Coast Creations, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gold Coast Creations, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07690 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gold Coast Creations Inc. is located in Roslyn, New York and is part of the Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers Industry.[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 GOOD SAMARITAN: Wins Summary Judgment in Frank Malpractice Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Jahmir Christopher Frank, Plaintiff v. The Good Samaritan Hospital of Cincinnati, Ohio, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00618 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, issued an Opinion and Order: a. sustaining the Defendant's Motion to Strike Dr. Jennifer Jones Hollings and Dr. Michael Katz as Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses, which the Judge construes as objections to the Plaintiff's evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2); and b. granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Background Plaintiff Frank was born at Defendant Good Samaritan on July 30, 1998. The Plaintiff suffers from periventricular leukomalacia ("PVL"), a permanent and debilitating brain injury that he attributes to trauma in utero during his delivery. His "Medical Malpractice Complaint with Class Allegations for Negligent Destruction of Medical Records" set forth three causes of action: medical malpractice, respondeat superior, and negligence, specifically the negligent destruction of medical records. The Court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's negligence cause of action on Dec. 9, 2019. And because the Plaintiff's class action allegations were supported solely by the dismissed negligence cause of action, the Court denied the Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification on Dec. 17, 2019. The Court also denied the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against the Hospital on the issue of liability on April 8, 2020. In support of his motion, Plaintiff offered the opinion testimony of Augustus G. Parker III, M.D., a practicing physician in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, who stated, "It is not possible to render a standard of care opinion without reviewing either the birth records of the delivery, fetal monitoring strips, or both." Because he played no role in the destruction of his medical records, and because his expert testified that a standard of care opinion could not be rendered without them, the Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. That is, he asked the Court for judgment as a matter of law that the Hospital violated the applicable standard of care during his birth, causing his brain injury, leaving only damages to be decided by a jury. The Court concluded that this relief was inappropriate. A spoliation sanction was not warranted because the Plaintiff failed to establish either that the Hospital had an obligation to preserve his medical records or a culpable state of mind. And because the Plaintiff offered no proof of intent, a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) was not warranted either. Remaining for resolution is the Plaintiff's individual medical malpractice claim against the Hospital. In compliance with the Court's April 17, 2020 Amended Calendar Order, the Plaintiff disclosed four experts on May 29, 2020: Jennifer Jones Hollings, M.D. (standard of care); Michael D. Katz, M.D. (causation); William T. Baldwin, Jr., Ph.D. (economist regarding damages); and Sharon Brown Lane, MRC, CRC, QRC (vocational rehabilitation consultant regarding employability). Dr. Parker, whose testimony Plaintiff offered for the proposition that it was "not possible" to render a standard of care opinion, was not disclosed as an expert. On June 3, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an updated report from Dr. Katz. The Hospital disclosed three experts on Aug. 19, 2020 and filed their affidavits in support of its pending summary judgment motion: Alan Bedrick, M.D. (causation); Elias Chalhub, M.D. (causation); and Harry Franklin Farb, M.D. (standard of care/causation). As noted, the Hospital moves to strike Drs. Hollings and Katz as the Plaintiff's expert witnesses. Law & Analysis I. Motion to Strike A. Jennifer Jones Hollings, M.D. The Hospital argues that Dr. Hollings is not competent to provide an expert medical opinion because she does not satisfy the "active clinical practice" requirement set forth in Ohio Evid. R. 601(B)(5)(b). It also argues that Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), preclude admission of her opinion because it is unreliable. Hence, the Hospital moves to strike Dr. Hollings as an expert witness and, in turn, Dr. Katz, because Dr. Katz bases his revised opinion on the opinion of Dr. Hollings. The Hospital additionally maintains that Dr. Katz is not qualified to testify under Rule 702 because both his original and revised opinions are speculative. Alternatively, the Hospital "seeks relief" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2), asking that the Plaintiff be prohibited from using Dr. Hollings's deposition testimony and the expert reports of Drs. Hollings and Katz in response to its summary judgment motion. Dr. Hollings graduated from the Howard University College of Medicine in 2002, finished her residency at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences in 2006, and first became board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology in 2007. She is a general obstetrician/gynecologist ("OB/GYN") and has never practiced in the subspecialties of maternal-fetal medicine, neonatology, or pediatric neurology. She has never diagnosed PVL. Dr. Hollings currently is employed as a Physician Clinical Reviewer for Magellan Health Care, where she has been working since October 2018. She has also been employed as a Peer Reviewer/Quality Reviewer for Keystone Peer Review Organization ("KEPRO") since October 2012. Neither Magellan nor KEPRO provide direct medical services. In her role with Magellan, Dr. Hollings "makes sure that the examinations that are ordered and provided to the patients are -- make clinical sense." Dr. Hollings estimates that 20% of her consultations involve obstetrics and gynecology "versus other subspecialties." Her work for KEPRO, which she describes as "intermittent," is "retrospective" review of obstetrics cases involving hospital admissions "that may potentially reach lawsuit status." Judge Barrett opines that Dr. Hollings's current work for Magellan does not constitute active clinical practice. She does not examine or diagnose patients, order tests, or develop treatment plans. Nor does she supervise physicians who are providing direct patient care. Dr. Hollings's work is not an "essential link" in the "chain of services" that constitutes the "comprehensive treatment" of patients. And, even if it were, only 20% of her consultations involve obstetrics and gynecology, far below the required "at least one-half" in her "field of licensure. In addition, Judge Barrett finds that it is the first case in which Dr. Hollings has offered her opinion as an expert, so she is not a professional witness in the "hired gun" sense. Although mindful of this purpose behind Ohio Evid. R. 601(B)(5)(b), the Judge must base its decision on whether Dr. Hollings actually treats patients at the present time. Because she does not, Dr. Hollings is not competent to testify as an expert in the case. The Plaintiff alternately contends that Dr. Hollings' prior years of practice satisfy the active clinical practice requirement. Judge Barrett finds otherwise. Dr. Hollings did not begin medical school until after the alleged malpractice occurred and she disengaged from active clinical practice before Plaintiff filed suit in the Southern District of Ohio. Further, no scheduling delays are attributable to the Hospital. Having determined that Dr. Hollings is not competent to testify as an expert under Ohio substantive law, Judge Barrett need not decide whether her opinion as to the standard of care is given with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Nor is a Daubert analysis necessary. The Hospital's Rule 56(c)(2) objection to her testimony is sustained. The Plaintiff may not offer Dr. Hollings' deposition testimony or expert report in opposition to the Hospital's summary judgment motion. B. Michael D. Katz, M.D. Judge Barrett also holds that Dr. Katz is not qualified to testify under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Dr. Katz is a pediatric neurologist. His opinions are limited to causation. The Hospital does not challenge Dr. Katz's competency under Ohio Evid. R. 601(B)(5)(b), but instead disputes his qualification to testify as an expert under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Dr. Katz was deposed in the state court litigation on March 12, 2018. At that time, he testified that "most of the children that have PVL have it before 33 weeks' gestation." PVL is also seen in mature (or full-term) infants with ischemic cardiac injuries. Despite the Plaintiff's mother's testimony that her son was born at 38 weeks,9 Dr. Katz questioned whether the Plaintiff may have been "more premature than we know." But he conceded -- in the absence of medical records to review -- that he had no opinion as to whether labor and delivery had "any relationship" to the Plaintiff's PVL. Judge Barrett agrees with the Hospital that Dr. Katz's March 2018 opinion is speculative and therefore unreliable. The Judge holds that Dr. Katz' "working backwards" conjecture that the Plaintiff was premature rather than full-term finds no support in the record. And his testimony was riddled with possibilities rather than probabilities because he had no medical records to review. Because he relies "particularly" on Dr. Hollings for his opinion on causation, and because Judge Barrett has found Dr. Hollings to be incompetent to testify as an expert witness, Dr. Katz's opinion is not "the product of reliable principles and methods." It, too, must be excluded. II. Motion for Summary Judgment Judge Barrett finds that the Hospital is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under Ohio law, a medical malpractice claim must satisfy four elements. A plaintiff must prove 1) the existence of a duty owed by defendant to plaintiff; 2) a breach of duty by defendant; 3) causation based on probability; and 4) damages. The Hospital moves for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's medical malpractice claim, arguing that he cannot satisfy the second and third elements. At various points in the state court litigation and here in the Southern District of Ohio, the Plaintiff offered the May 17, 2018 expert testimony of Dr. Parker for the proposition that it was "not possible" to render a standard of care opinion. The Court has since determined that the Plaintiff's second standard of care witness, Dr. Hollings, is incompetent to testify under Ohio substantive law. Thus, the only standard of care evidence properly before the Court is the expert testimony of Harry Franklin Farb, M.D., an obstetrician who also practices in the subspecialty of maternal-fetal medicine. The Hospital's expert Dr. Farb opines, "based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that in spite of the fact there are no medical records associated with this delivery, based upon the birth video and the birth photos, there is no reason to suspect that a deviation from the standard of care occurred in this case." Judge Barrett also has determined that the Plaintiff's causation witness, Dr. Katz, is not qualified to testify under the federal rules of evidence. As to causation, the Hospital's expert Dr. Farb further opines, "based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Jahmir Frank's brain injury is completely unrelated to the provision of medical/obstetric/nursing services provided at the time of labor and delivery." Other causation evidence properly before the Court is the expert testimony of Alan Bedrick, M.D., a neonatologist. Because the Plaintiff has not produced a competent expert who will offer an admissible opinion at trial that the Hospital breached the applicable standard of care during the Plaintiff's delivery -- rendering unopposed Dr. Farb's opinion that the standard of care was not breached -- there is no genuine dispute as to the second element that the Plaintiff is required to prove. And because the Plaintiff has not produced a competent expert who will offer an admissible opinion at trial that any alleged deviation from the standard of care actually caused the Plaintiff's brain injury -- rendering unopposed the opinions of Drs. Farb, Bedrick, and Chalhub that Plaintiff's brain injury is unrelated to his delivery -- there is no genuine dispute as to the third element that the Plaintiff is required to prove. Accordingly, the Hospital is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the Plaintiff's medical malpractice claim. Conclusion To summarize, Judge Barrett construes the Defendant's Motion to Strike Dr. Jennifer Jones Hollings and Dr. Michael Katz as the Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses as objections to the Plaintiff's evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) and those objections are sustained. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore granted. The Clerk will terminate the civil action from the docket of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/echduyas from Leagle.com. GOOGLE LLC: Ill. Federal Court Affirms Biometric Class Action Stay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Natalie A. Prescott, Esq., of Mintz, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that a federal court in Illinois agreed with Google that a biometric privacy lawsuit filed against it in the Northern District of Illinois should be stayed in favor of a similar pending state court case. Although it is not uncommon for plaintiffs' firms to file nearly duplicative lawsuits in state and federal courts, it is not always a guarantee that such lawsuits will be automatically stayed. Before a stay order can be obtained, the defendant typically must still engage in costly (and sometimes lengthy) motion practice. And at least some courts still allow the later-filed action to proceed, on various grounds. This time, the district court made it clear that such duplicative actions should not be allowed, as they waste the parties' and judicial resources. They also create the risk of inconsistent rulings. In the underlying lawsuit, which will now be addressed by the Illinois state court, the named plaintiff alleged that Google violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by using Google Photos service to scan individual pictures and extract biometric data without informed consent. This is a helpful procedural win for Google and for defendants facing similarly duplicative privacy class actions around the country. "The significant costs imposed by piecemeal litigation -- dividing the informed-consent claims and the retention-policy claims into two different forums -- and the strong Illinois interest in presenting an Illinois statutory dispute to the Illinois state court system dictate that this federal case be stayed in favor of the state case," Chang wrote. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Fraud Claims in Privacy Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Holland, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Google LLC and parent company Alphabet Inc. are arguing that several claims levied against them in California federal court should be axed because there's no evidence they acted intentionally to violate users' privacy rights. That lack of intentionality and lack of obfuscation on Google's part means the plaintiffs' Consumers Legal Remedies Act and common law fraud claims need to be tossed, the search giant alleged in a reply in support of its motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Barasch Trust Putative Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Stanley S. and Millicent R. Barasch Trust and Loretta Dehay, individually and on behalf of others similar situated v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 19 Civ. 1079. In November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against, certain limited partnerships, including the Partnership, for which GPB is the general partner, Ascendant Alternative Strategies (AAS), and Ascendant Capital, LLC, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed funds, auditors, a fund administrator, and individuals. The original Complaint named Millicent R. Barasch as the plaintiff, but since her death, her trust has successfully moved to substitute for all purposes in this litigation.) The Complaint alleges civil conspiracy, fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in the breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and violations of the Texas Securities Act. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, declaratory relief, among other forms of relief. GPB Automotive said, "Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time." GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New York, New York. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Class Suit Underway in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: GPB Capital Holdings, LLC Litigation (formerly, Adam Younker, Dennis and Cheryl Schneider, Elizabeth Plaza, and Plaza Professional Center Inc. PFT Sharing v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al. and Peter G. Golder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al.), Case No. 157679/2019. In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in New York Supreme Court against GPB, GPB Holdings, GPB Holdings II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB Cold Storage, GPB Waste Management, David Gentile, Jeffrey Lash, Macrina Kgil, a/k/a Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott Naugle, Jeffry Schneider, Ascendant Alternative Strategies, Ascendant Capital, and Axiom Capital Management. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief. Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New York, New York. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Kinnie Ma Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Kinnie Ma Individual Retirement Account, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ascendant Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-CV-1050 In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against GPB Capital Holdings, LLC ("GPB"), certain limited partnerships, including the Partnership, for which GPB is the general partner, Alternative Strategies ("AAS"), and Ascendant Capital, LLC, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed funds, auditors, broker-dealers, a fund administrator, and other individuals. The Complaint alleges violations of the Texas Securities Act, fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and certain equitable relief. Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New York, New York. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca and Drew Putative Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Barbara Deluca and Drew R. Naylor, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated limited partners, v. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP et al., Case No. 19-CV-10498. In November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against GPB Capital Holdings, LLC (GPB), GPB Holdings II, the company, David Gentile, Jeffery Lash, Ascendant Alternative Strategies (AAS), Axiom, Jeffry Schneider, Mark Martino, and Ascendant Capital, LLC (Ascendant). The Complaint alleges, among other things, fraud and material omissions and misrepresentations to induce investment. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief. GPB said, "Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time." GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New York, New York. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Ortiz Class Action Ongoing in New York ------------------------------------------------------ GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Monica Ortiz, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated vs. GPB Capital Holdings LLC; Automile Holdings, LLC d/b/a Prime Automotive Group; David Gentile; David Rosenberg; Philip Delzotta; Joseph Delzotta; and other affiliated entities and individuals, Case No. 604918/2020. In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a class action in New York Supreme Court against GPB, Automile Holdings LLC d/b/a Prime Automotive Group, David Gentile, David Rosenberg, Philip Delzotta, Joseph Delzotta, and other affiliated entities and individuals. The Complaint alleges deceptive and misleading business practices of the named Defendants with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or leasing of automobiles and the financial and credit products related to the same throughout the State of New York. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and penalties. Any potential losses associated with this matter cannot be estimated at this time. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company which was organized as a Delaware limited partnership on May 27, 2013 and commenced operations on that date. The company is based in New York, New York. GRAND GIFTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ZURICH CARLOTA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND GIFTS & CAFE INC. (D/B/A GRAND GIFT CAFE); and SAVVAS TSIATTALOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07530 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Jimenez was employed by the Defendants as storekeeper. GRAND GIFTS & CAFE INC. owns and operates a gift shop and coffee shop, located at Bronx, NY, under the name "Grand Gift Cafe". [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GRUBHUB INC: Illinois District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ On September 7, 2021, Judge Charles Ronald Norgle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an online food delivery company and certain of its executives. Azar v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-07665, 2021 WL 4077327 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 7, 2021). Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations regarding the success of its marketing and expansion initiatives. The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and scienter. With respect to the alleged misrepresentations, the Court rejected defendants' argument that the allegations amounted to impermissible "fraud by hindsight" based on statements that ultimately turned out to be incorrect. To the contrary, the Court determined that alleged statements regarding how often new customers placed orders-such as "we've been able to acquire high-quality new diners in . . . newer markets" and "diners in [new] markets are behaving a lot like diners do in other markets"-reflected statements of present fact, which were "bolster[ed]" by plaintiff's allegations that the company closely monitored customer metrics. Id. at *4. The Court further held that statements regarding the company's restaurant partners-including that the company had a "broad and deep restaurant network" and grew "primarily [because of] better restaurant choices"-were plausibly misleading in the face of allegations that the company had failed to establish sufficient restaurant density in new markets. Id. Moreover, because plaintiff alleged that the company used data to track customer "quality" and restaurant density, the Court held that the alleged misstatements "could reasonably be interpreted as a factual claim" rather than subjective statements of opinion. Id. at *5. With respect to scienter, the Court held that the "totality of [p]laintiff's allegations supports a strong inference that [d]efendants knew about negative financial trends and spoke with an intent to deceive." Id. The Court noted that seven sets of allegations, taken together, supported an inference of scienter: (i) new customer quality was low in the period before the challenged statements were made, and the company closely analyzed such data; (ii) the company never achieved adequate restaurant density or customer quality; (iii) even before the challenged statements were made, the company had begun to change its business model for working with restaurants to match that of its competitors and refinanced its debt; (iv) the company's CEO and CFO controlled all aspects of the company, had access to proprietary information, were directly involved in the company's expansion, and made numerous statements regarding customer quality; (v) customer and restaurant quality were important to the company's investors, (vi) the issues the company eventually disclosed were so severe the company became unprofitable and changed its business model; and (vii) defendants were motivated to increase the company's stock price, including because they could then more cheaply acquire companies and increase payouts to defendants. Id. While the Court agreed with defendants that certain allegations "in isolation" were not sufficient to establish scienter, the Court concluded that, considering all the allegations together, plaintiff's inference of deceptive intent was "cogent" and "at least as compelling as [d]efendants' opposing inference." [GN] HAIN CELESTIAL: Sept. 27 Oral Argument on Appeal of Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that oral argument on the appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated securities class suit entitled, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, is scheduled for September 27, 2021. On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.. On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation, appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017. The Amended Complaint named as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 3, 2017 which the Court granted on March 29, 2019, dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2019. The Second Amended Complaint again named as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the Amended Complaint, including materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 20, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August 5, 2019, and Defendants submitted a reply on September 3, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2020 indicating their intent to appeal the Court's decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 18, 2020. Defendants filed their opposition brief on November 17, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on December 8, 2020. Accordingly, Co-Lead Plaintiffs' appeal is fully briefed. Oral argument is scheduled for September 27, 2021. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York. HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the case entitled, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation, is still stayed. On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al. and Barnes v. Simon, et al., respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company. The complaint alleged that the Company's former directors and certain former officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and financial results. The complaint also alleged that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff. On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties' stipulation to consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the "Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al., and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after a decision was rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. On March 29, 2019, the Court in the Consolidated Securities Action granted Defendants' motion, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 6, 2019. The parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint through 30 days after a decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the stay, Defendants in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action had until May 6, 2020 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint in this matter. This deadline was extended, and Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action Complaint on June 23, 2020, with Plaintiffs' opposition due August 7, 2020. On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand on the current Board containing overlapping factual allegations to those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. On August 10, 2020, the Court vacated the briefing schedule on Defendants' pending motion to dismiss in order to give the Board of Directors time to consider the demand. On each of September 8 and October 8, 2020, the Court extended its stay of any applicable deadlines for 30 days to give the Board of Directors additional time to complete its evaluation of the demand. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board of Directors had finished investigating and resolved, among other things, that the demand should be rejected. On November 6, 2020, Plaintiffs and Defendants notified the Court that Plaintiffs were evaluating the rejection of the demand, sought certain additional information and were assessing next steps, and requested that the Court extend the stay for an additional 30 days, to on or around December 7, 2020. Since that time, Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed a number of joint status reports, requesting that the Court stay applicable deadlines to allow for the production of certain materials by the Board of Directors for review by Plaintiffs. The current stay ordered by the Court is set to expire on October 29, 2021. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York. HALIFAX INVESTMENT: Dec. 10 Deadline Set to Sign Up Class Members ----------------------------------------------------------------- Investment News New Zealand reports that disgruntled investors in the collapsed Australasian broking firm Halifax Investment Services have until December 10 at the latest to sign up as "active members" of a funded class action appeal. Under a product disclosure statement lodged in NZ, litigation fund Omni Bridgeway Investment Management (OBIML) urge any so-called 'category 1' Halifax clients on both sides of the Tasman "who wish to become Active Members of the Scheme" to apply before September 23 this year -- the date of an appeal to be heard both in Australia and NZ courts. "However, OBIML will accept applications from Category 1 Investors to be admitted as a member of the Scheme up until such time that the Funded Proceedings are the subject of a final judgment, provided such date is no later than 10 December 2021," the PDS says. The Halifax appeal funding agreement is treated as an investment scheme under Australian law, requiring disclosure documents to be issued. Under the trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition agreement, Australian investment schemes can register documents almost as-is in NZ (and vice-versa). As reported in August, a final settlement to distribute over A$200 million among the 12,000 Halifax clients -- including 3,800 in NZ -- awaits the outcome of the appeal lodged by Choo Boon Loo as a representative category 1 investor. In a letter this August, the Australian legal firm handling the appeal, Maddocks, notes: "The role of Mr Loo as a representative party in the Initial Proceedings created complexities for individual investors and their ability to bring an appeal. However, it also gave rise to the possibility that any appeal, brought in the name of Mr Loo, would need to be funded by Mr Loo personally. For this reason, Mr Loo approached a litigation funder to assist with the costs of any appeal proceedings. This course was supported by a number of Category 1 Investors." The appeal -- to be heard jointly by the Federal Court of Australia and the NZ Court of Appeal on September 23 this year -- challenges an earlier legal decision setting the valuation date for disputed Halifax assets as at the time the firm collapsed into administration late in November 2018. According to the Loo appeal, the previous Australian and NZ Halifax judgment should have "calculated the proportionate entitlements of the clients of Halifax AU and Halifax NZ as close as possible to the distribution date and, in any event, only after the Liquidators realised all extant investments". Halifax category 1 investors either "elected to keep their position open following the November 2018 administration date or "had a higher valuation on their investments post-administration", the Maddocks letter says. The trans-Tasman broking firm specialising in derivatives -- and headed at the time in NZ by Andrew Gibbs -- collapsed late in 2018 revealing a A$20 million shortfall and the misuse of co-mingled client funds. While Halifax liquidator, KPMG, estimates all investors should receive 100 per cent of their funds back as per the November 2018 valuation, the pending appeal could significantly alter the distribution if it succeeds. ". . . should the Appeals be successful and the Courts conclude that the Liquidators are justified in calculating the proportionate entitlements of investors at a date later than the Administration Date, the likely effect of that finding will be that Category 1 Investors will receive a larger distribution from the funds held on trust than they otherwise would have received had the Appeals not been pursued," Maddocks says. Active members of the appeal will receive communication on the case progress but all category 1 Halifax investors should benefit if the courts rule in favour of Loo. The global litigation funder, Omni Bridgeway, will take at least a 10 per cent cut of extra category 1 distribution if the appeal succeeds while bearing all costs if the legal bid fails. Omni Bridgeway also announced in July it would investigate potential claims against CMC Markets for clients "who may have suffered loss and damage relating to their investment" in the Crude Oil West Texas Intermediate (WTI) Cash product. As reported last year, some investors were caught short last year as CMC altered pricing in the product amid extreme volatility in the oil market. [GN] HEALTHEXTRAS INC: Court Tosses Insurance Class Suit for 2nd Time ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stoddard, Esq., -- christine.stoddard@faegredrinker.com -- of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, disclosed that for a second time, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action alleging insurance companies sold them disability policies that were void under New York law. The suit arose in connection with the "HealthExtras" insurance program, a program created by HealthExtras, Inc. offering accidental disability and medical expense coverage through marketing agreements with banks and companies offering branded credit cards. Credit card holders were solicited through their monthly credit card statements as well as by phone and direct mail. Some of those marketing materials included the late actor Christopher Reeves. Plaintiffs alleged the policies were void ab initio because the HealthExtras Program violated New York insurance law in various ways. Specifically, they claimed the policies were group and/or blanket policies that were not issued to eligible entities under New York law, were not filed and approved with the New York Department of Financial Services and did not contain standard provisions required by law. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed the policies were drafted to make coverage illusory. As such, they argued the policies were illegal, against public policy, and either void ab initio or voidable and brought claims for deceptive trade practices and false advertising under New York General Business Law (GBL) Secs. 349-350, fraud, and quasi-contract claims, including unjust enrichment. In 2016, the district court dismissed the case, finding plaintiffs lacked standing -- a decision that was vacated by the Second Circuit on appeal. Recently, the remaining insurer defendants again moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were all time-barred, as plaintiffs were aware of the facts and alleged misrepresentations when coverage was issued in 2000, 15 years before the complaint was filed. The district court agreed the claims were time-barred. It rejected plaintiffs' arguments that the continuing wrong doctrine and equitable tolling saved their claims. As to the former, plaintiffs did not allege a separate wrong that occurred with each premium payment but claimed that the policies were sold with false and misleading advertising. The later continuation of coverage, the Court found, was the continuing effect of the earlier conduct. With regard to the latter, even where a defendant's purported fraud delays the filing of a lawsuit or conceals the existence of a cause of action, a plaintiff is still required to bring the action within a reasonable time after discovering the relevant facts. Here, plaintiffs were on notice of the facts surrounding their claims by at least 2005, at which point they had received all marketing materials and policy terms but did not exercise due diligence in investigating their claims thereafter. As such, all of the claims were time-barred, and the court again granted the insurers' motion to dismiss. Dubuisson v. National Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 15 Civ. 2259 (July 26, 2021) [GN] HILL ENTERPRISE: Faces Espinal Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Espinal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hill Enterprise Inc., HTM Food Mart Inc., John Doe Corporations 1-20, Omar Mahmud and Tariq Mahmud, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04973, (E.D. N.Y., September 3, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid wages due to unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate multiple gas stations across New York State where Espinal worked as a station attendant. He claims that throughout the first nine days of his employment, he was forced to undergo a training period during which he was not paid any wages. During his employment, he also claims to have never received wage statements. In addition to the wage and hour violations, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate W-2 tax statement for each tax year during which Plaintiff worked, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 HOME DEPOT: Faces Carson Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ MELISSA CARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01028-P (N.D. Tex., Sept. 7, 2021) arises from the Defendant's engagement in unsolicited text messaging in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant continues to bombard Plaintiff's cellular telephone with marketing text messages even after repeated requests by Plaintiff for the messages to stop. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com HOME DEPOT: Hearing for Class Cert. Bid Continued to Feb. 17, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNIE SANCHEZ BARRAGAN, ARACELI BARRAGAN, and JEREMEY BURCHAM, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01766-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order that the hearing for Plaintiff Jeremy Burcham's motion for class certification is continued to February 17, 2022. The Defendant argues that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), the Court should continue the hearing as Defendant may be barred from speaking to a class of Home Depot employees about this case if this Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on November 4, 2021. The Defendant further contends that this investigation "is imperative to Home Depot's ability to oppose Plaintiffs' anticipated, second class certification motion on a meal premium claim[.]" Thus, Defendant requests that this Court continue the hearing date set for the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion, currently November 4, 2021, until the hearing date for Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification on a newly pleaded meal premium claim. The Plaintiffs oppose Defendant's ex parte application, arguing the putative class members' testimony is irrelevant to Defendant's analysis of the meal premium claim, and that even if Defendant needed class declarations, it could obtain them post-certification. Moreover, the Plaintiffs assert that Defendant is merely seeking to delay class certification in an attempt to further delay this case. The Plaintiffs also state they are willing to bifurcate the case, where Plaintiff Burcham is willing to waive his right to participate as a class representative as to the meal/rest premium allegations. Thus, Jeremy Burcham would act as class representative for the overtime claim, and Donnie Sanchez Barragan and Araceli Barragan as class representatives for the remaining claims. The Defendant counters that if a continuance is not granted, it may suffer irreparable harm as it may be denied the opportunity to investigate Plaintiffs' meal premium claim and prepare its defense to class certification. The Defendant additionally asserts it should not be denied the opportunity to speak to all subsets of a meal premium class, and that even if Plaintiffs stipulate to allow Defendant to speak to members of the overtime class about meal break practices, there would be risk of confusion as to the issues and employees' status as class members." Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools, construction products, and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ceyqp6 at no extra charge.[CC] HOMEADVISOR INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 5, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOMEADVISOR, INC. LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an order amending scheduling order to reflect the following deadlines: -- Affirmative Expert Disclosure/ November 12, 2021 Report Deadline -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure/ February 10, 2022 Report Deadline -- Expert Discovery Cutoff March 21, 2022 -- Deadline to File Class May 5, 2022 Certification -- Deadline to File Response to June 27, 2022 Class Certification Motion -- Deadline to File Reply to August 8, 2022 Class Certification Motion -- Deadline to File Dispositive 45 Days After Court's Motions Order on Motion to Certify Class A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cihqyh at no extra charge.[CC] HONEST COMPANY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 15 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired The Honest Company, Inc. ("Honest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HNST): common stock (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's May 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) from May 3, 2021 through September 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 15, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On May 6, 2021, Honest completed its IPO, selling approximately 26 million shares of common stock for $16.00 per share. Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, before the market opened, Honest announced its second quarter 2021 financial results, reporting a net loss of $20 million, compared to a net loss of only $0.4 million for the second quarter of 2020. Honest disclosed that its revenue grew only 3% as compared to the second quarter of 2020, because it was negatively impacted by "an estimated $3.7 million COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in Diapers and Wipes in the prior year period." Honest also disclosed that its Diapers and Wipes category revenue declined 2% compared to the second quarter of 2020. Honest further disclosed that "Household and Wellness revenue declined 6% from the second quarter of 2020 as consumer and customer demand for sanitization products decreased as consumers became vaccinated and customers managed heavy levels of inventory." On this news, the Company's stock price declined by $3.98 per share, or approximately 28.3%, from $14.05 per share to close at $10.07 per share on August 13, 2021. On August 19, 2021, the Company's stock price closed at an all-time low of $9.16 per share, a nearly 43% decline from the $16.00 per share IPO price. The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted: (1) that, prior to the IPO, the Company's results had been significantly impacted by a multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up for products in the Diapers and Wipes category and Household and Wellness category; (2) that, at the time of the IPO, the Company was experiencing decelerating demand for such products; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial results would likely be adversely impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Honest stock, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] HONEST COMPANY: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Honest Company class action lawsuit charges The Honest Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: HNST), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of Honest Company's May 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Filed in the Central District of California on September 15, 2021 and captioned Dixon v. The Honest Company, Inc., No. 21-cv-07405, the Honest Company class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Honest Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Honest Company's IPO. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Honest Company class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Honest Company class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 15, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Honest Company class action lawsuit alleges that Honest Company's Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted that: (i) prior to the IPO, Honest Company's results had been significantly impacted by a multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up for products in its Diapers and Wipes as well as Household and Wellness product categories; (ii) at the time of the IPO, Honest Company was experiencing decelerating demand for such products; (iii) as a result, Honest Company's financial results would likely be adversely impacted; and (iv) as such, defendants' positive statements about Honest Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, Honest Company reported a net loss of $20 million for the second quarter of 2021, as compared to a net loss of only $0.4 million for the second quarter of 2020. Honest Company also disclosed that its revenue grew only 3% as compared to the second quarter of 2020, because it was negatively impacted by "an estimated $3.7 million COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in Diapers and Wipes in the prior year period." Honest Company also disclosed that its Diapers and Wipes product category revenue declined 2% compared to the second quarter of 2020. Honest Company further disclosed that "Household and Wellness revenue declined 6% from the second quarter of 2020 as consumer and customer demand for sanitization products decreased as consumers became vaccinated and customers managed heavy levels of inventory." On this news, Honest Company's stock price fell approximately 28%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Honest Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Honest Company class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Honest Company class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Honest Company class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Honest Company class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. [GN] HP INC: Investors Strike Out in Proposed Suit Over Printing Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Jackson at Reuters reports that a California federal judge has thrown out HP investors' amended lawsuit alleging that the company misled investors into believing the financial performance of its printing supply business was improving. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco said that she was granting HP's motion to dismiss the proposed securities class action because the amended complaint failed to adequately allege that HP had made misleading or false statements. The investors' attorneys from Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did defense lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attorneys advising HP or a company representative. Rhode Island's Office of the General Treasurer initially sued HP in February 2020 on behalf of HP shareholders Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580, according to the ruling. After Illston dismissed the first amended complaint in March, the HP shareholders filed a new amended complaint accusing the company of misleading investors about the company's print supplies channel inventory management and sales practices. The complaint claimed the company failed to disclose limitations in its model for assessing the state of the printing supplies business' revenue. The investors said they were suing to recoup losses they allegedly suffered when HP's share price plummeted after the company disclosed corrected financial information for the printing supplies unit. HP has denied wrongdoing. The complaint also cited charges HP faced from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that the company concealed efforts to boost sales of printing supplies in order to meet quarterly sales and earnings targets. HP paid $6 million in September 2020 to settle those claims without admitting or denying them. Ruling on HP's second motion to dismiss, Illston said shareholders failed to show how the company made misleading statements about its toner based products' market share and the stabilizing of its printing supplies unit's revenue, among other aspects of the business. The judge also agreed with HP that the shareholders hadn't plausibly alleged that the company knowingly or intentionally made misleading statements about its printing supplies business. The case is In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:20-cv-01260. For lead plaintiffs: Jennifer Joost, Eli Greenstein and Stacey Kaplan of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check; and Jonathan Uslaner of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. For HP: Brian Lutz and Lissa Percopo of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; and Sara Brody of Sidley Austin. [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Battery Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- lawyers4lemons.com reports that many consumers purchase Hyundai vehicles because they are cost effective, and the manufacturer offers long warranties. However, the automaker has recently become known for selling vehicles with defective battery systems. In fact, a class action lawsuit alleges Hyundai knew about the problem before the first recall was ever issued, and this is not the first time Hyundai class action lawsuits have been filed. Hyundai isn't the first manufacturer to sell vehicles with hazardous batteries. It's essential to understand that under California's Lemon Law, vehicle manufacturers have responsibilities - and consumers have rights. If you purchased a defective vehicle such as a Hyundai, you might be able to hold the automaker accountable for selling you a vehicle that did not conform to its warranty. What is the Problem with Hyundai Vehicles? Despite the manufacturer's reputation for reliability, a problem was discovered with the 2019-2020 Kona Electric and the 2020 Ioniq Electric batteries found in Hyundai's SUVs and cars. Those who owned and leased the affected vehicles were advised by the manufacturer to park outside due to the risk of fire which was supposedly linked to the defective batteries - at least 13 battery fires occurred and are under investigation by Hyundai. More than 80,000 vehicles were recalled by the manufacturer in October 2020 due to the battery issue with repairs estimated at $900 million. Specifically, the recalled vehicles were all equipped with battery cells made in the LG Energy Solutions China plant in Nanjing. The problem stems from the Anode tab on the defective cells which can be folded allowing the Lithium plating to come into contact with the Cathode. When this occurs, an electrical short can result. Hyundai will be replacing the defective batteries as part of the recall. The manufacturer recommends owners adjust the maximum charge level to 80% while they are waiting for the repair. What Makes a Hyundai a Lemon? California's Lemon Law sets forth stringent criteria that must be satisfied in order for a vehicle to qualify as a lemon - and for you to obtain the refund or replacement vehicle to which you're entitled. Just because a car is subject to a recall or class action doesn't necessarily mean it is a lemon. To invoke the lemon law, the vehicle must still be under the original manufacturer's warranty and fail to conform to it. A reasonable number of repair attempts must also be made before a car can qualify as a lemon. Generally, four repair attempts will suffice to bring a lemon law claim. However, only two repair attempts are needed if the problem is one that could cause injury or fatality to the driver, their passengers, or others on the road. A vehicle might also be a lemon if it was in the repair shop for 30 days or more and the defect was not fixed. A Hyundai, or any other vehicle, may also be presumed to be a lemon if the defect arose within the first 18 months of the vehicle's delivery or within the first 18,000 miles driven. What Does the Hyundai Class Action Lawsuit Allege? A class action lawsuit, Siamak Kermani, v. Hyundai Motor America, et al., was filed in California in June as a result of the battery defect. The Hyundai class action lawsuit alleges that Hyundai knew about the dangerous battery system but refused to make repairs and informed owners that there was no actual remedy. Additionally, the lawsuit argues that the software updates offered by Hyundai did nothing to fix the defect. The class action - which is ongoing - seeks buy-back refunds for the affected vehicles under the California Lemon Law. What Responsibilities Do Manufacturers Have Under California Lemon Law? Whether you own a Hyundai or another vehicle, you might be wondering what a manufacturer's responsibilities are under the lemon law. Unfortunately, many people think they have limited options if they purchased a lemon - but if a manufacturer sells a faulty vehicle, they may be required to replace it or refund the buyer the purchase price under the lemon law. A manufacturer also has obligations to notify owners if they become aware of a problem with their vehicles. By law, automakers must also offer warranties that address these protections. Owners must be informed within 60 days of a recall being issued, and repairs should be provided by the manufacturer at no cost. While many recalls are issued voluntarily by the manufacturer, some are ordered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Regardless of your warranty, it's crucial to be aware that the manufacturer must provide you with at least the minimum protection guaranteed by California's Lemon Law if you purchased the vehicle within the state. Contact an Experienced Southern California Lemon Law Attorney If you purchased a Hyundai with a defective battery or another problem that makes it fail to conform to its warranty, you might be entitled to a legal remedy under California's Lemon Law. A skilled lemon law attorney can best advise you and help to ensure you obtain a positive resolution in your case. The lemon law attorneys at The Ledbetter Law Firm are dedicated to achieving the best possible results for each of their clients for the inconvenience they experienced due to buying a lemon. The Ledbetter Law Firm assists people in Southern California who have experienced lemon law issues with their vehicles in obtaining favorable outcomes in their cases. With offices conveniently located in Torrance and San Diego, California, telephone and video conferencing options are also available. Call (424) 407-3487 to schedule a consultation with a California Lemon Law attorney. [GN] J-M MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu, entered an order regarding deadline to respond to sixth amended complaint and reset schedule for class certification as follows: 1. Plaintiff's deadline to file its Motion for Class Certification is extended to October 1, 2021. 2. J-M's deadline to respond to the Sixth Amended Complaint is extended to November 19, 2021; 3. If J-M files a motion in response to the Sixth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's deadline to file its Motion for Class Certification will be taken off calendar pending resolution of that motion. J-M Manufacturing manufacturers of plastic pipe, fittings and tubing products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hDdCzK at no extra charge.[CC] JACOBS & CUSHMAN: Food Bank Leader Leaves Amid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Halverstadt, writing for Voice of San Diego, reports that The Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank stepped up to respond to an avalanche of need during the pandemic and now it's bracing for increased demand for food aid in the years to come without its longtime leader. Jim Floros, who served as the Food Bank's CEO for nearly nine years, abruptly left the nonprofit in mid-July without a public announcement or explanation. Casey Castillo, a nearly 14-year Food Bank veteran now serving as the agency's interim CEO, declined to explain why Floros departed, saying he could not comment on personnel matters. Castillo also would not say whether Floros' departure was related to a May class action lawsuit filed by a former employee who alleged that the Food Bank and staffing company Randstad USA failed to pay staffers for all hours they worked at the correct rates due to mandates to work off the clock, among other issues. The suit suggests that the number of employees eligible to join the action could be more than 25. It doesn't include specific details on the allegations or exactly when the issues played out. "We do deny the claims in their entirety, but we are unable to comment further on pending litigation," Castillo said. Floros, who had been an outspoken advocate for the Food Bank, did not return multiple messages left by Voice of San Diego. Attorneys representing the former employee, Angel De La Torre, also did not respond to multiple messages. In the meantime, Food Bank leaders say other longtime executives who remain at the agency, including Castillo, are well equipped to help the nonprofit continue to feed hundreds of thousands of people each month -- a number that exploded from about 350,000 a month before the pandemic to roughly 600,000 a month at the height of COVID-19's economic ravages. To deal with the need, Castillo said, the nonprofit brought on additional staff and partnered with nearly three dozen food pantries throughout the region that now operate as high-volume distribution hubs, among other moves. Castillo said the Food Bank is now serving nearly 550,000 people a month but is planning for future upticks along with other challenges, including the halt of enhanced unemployment benefits, ending eviction moratoriums and rising food prices. "We expect to feed a lot of people throughout the next couple years at a similar pace," Castillo said. But sustaining a dramatically bolstered food distribution system is not the only issue confronting the Food Bank. In a statement, Food Bank board chairman Steve Bernstein wrote that the agency's board is convening a committee to work with the nonprofit's executives to "address future leadership of the organization." In the aftermath of Floros' departure, Feeding San Diego CEO Dan Shea -- who leads San Diego's other food bank -- said he suspects the leadership change will help the two organizations better partner to tackle the surging food need. The Food Bank has faced transitions during challenging times before. More than a decade ago, the food bank lost its certification as an affiliate of national charity Feeding America and former San Diego Food Bank board members rushed to start the operation now dubbed Feeding San Diego just months before the start of the Great Recession. The San Diego Food Bank later bounced back with the help of long-held U.S. Department of Agriculture contracts, which have long supplied a substantial portion of its food haul, as well as new agreements with other food sources. The nonprofit became the Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank after philanthropists Irwin Jacobs and Steve Cushman paid off the mortgage for the nonprofit's Miramar warehouse. That left San Diego with two thriving food banks largely reliant on different food sources that during the pandemic collectively distributed far more food via mass distribution events, local pantries and other programs than before to meet a skyrocketing need. Before the pandemic, the San Diego Hunger Coalition estimated that about 25 percent of county residents were considered nutrition insecure due to incomes that fall under 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $53,000 for a family of four. Hunger Coalition CEO Anahid Brakke said that estimate rose to 39 percent during the height of the pandemic — and those who were already struggling face more challenges during the pandemic. "People that were already food insecure really became even more food insecure," Brakke said. To address the crisis, Castillo said, the Food Bank alone distributed the equivalent of 50 million meals over fiscal year 2020-21, up from 35.8 million the year before. Feeding San Diego, meanwhile, said it distributed the equivalent of more than 40 million meals over fiscal year 2020-21, up from about 26 million meals a couple years earlier. Data from the Hunger Coalition, which compiles information from both food banks and other sources, shows distributors, including the food banks, delivered 85 percent more meals in November 2020 than they had in January 2020. This March alone, the coalition estimates, those sources collectively distributed nearly 5.3 million meals. During the pandemic, Brakke said, federal government policies that made it far easier to access benefits such as CalFresh, temporary increases in benefits and dialed-up efforts by the food banks and groups temporarily helped address hunger needs that she and others expect will rise again as pandemic-related aid and policies wind down. In January 2020, the Hunger Coalition estimated food assistance resources, including CalFresh and the food banks, delivered about 18.5 million meals to San Diegans, whether in the form of assistance or food items. This March, the Hunger Coalition reports those sources provided the equivalent of 32.3 million meals. Yet they still aren't meeting the entirety of the need -- and advocates who work on food insecurity issues expect things will worsen before they improve. That puts more pressure on San Diego's food banks. "People are definitely hurting, and it's about to get so much worse, and we have to work closely together to make sure that every single thing that people are eligible for, that they can get that support," Brakke said. Brakke, who declined to comment on Floros' departure, said she is confident San Diego's hunger relief organizations and philanthropic supporters can come together to address the crisis in a more collaborative way in the months to come. "I think people are coming out of their silos and looking at ways to work more closely together," Brakke said. Indeed, Castillo and Feeding San Diego CEO Dan Shea were set to meet to discuss how they can work together and fill gaps. Castillo and Shea both told VOSD that a merger with Feeding San Diego repeatedly pushed -- albeit unsuccessfully -- by Floros and other Food Bank leaders in the years before the pandemic isn't on the table for now. Floros and others had long suggested the groups might serve more hungry San Diegans if they joined forces. Castillo said the two food banks have regularly met and collaborated over the years, particularly during the pandemic, to ensure they are "meeting the challenges of a vast rise in food insecurity due to the pandemic." Shea told VOSD that he expected Floros' departure would pave the way for more joint efforts. "There's a new spirit of cooperation," Shea said. "I attribute it to the fact that Floros is no longer there because he never demonstrated interest in actually collaborating before, and my hat is off to the board and management of the San Diego Food Bank for participating in discussions that are going to lead us to better serve the community together." Mitch Mitchell, a Food Bank advisory board member who helped revive the agency years ago, said collaboration between the two organizations has improved in recent years but some more expansive suggestions about how the two groups might increase their collective impact together have flailed. (Disclosure: Mitchell is also a VOSD board member.) He now believes that could change. "There were big ideas that were mentioned and discussed over the last few years that didn't go anywhere that did create a level of frustration among some of the donors," Mitchell said. "We now are having serious conversations because we both have this understanding of how much better we need to be over the next few years." [GN] JIM'S TOWING: Campbell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jim's Towing Service, Inc. The case is styled as Zainful Arfin Campbell, individually, on representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jim's Towing Service, Inc., Case No. BCV-21-102083 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 2, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Jim's Towing Service -- https://www.jimstowingservice.com/ -- is a towing service in Bakersfield, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Misty M. Lauby, Esq. LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP 4590 Allstate Dr. Riverside, CA 92501-1702 Phone: 951-321-6008 Fax: 951-320-1445 Email: misty@lmlfirm.com - and - Kaleb L. Judy, Esq. BELDEN BLAINE RAYTIS, LLP 5016 California Ave., Suite 3 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Phone: 661-864-7826 Fax: 661-878-9797 Email: kaleb@bbr.law JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Pedron Sues Over Defective Sunscreen Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roxane M. Pedron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-23189-MGC (S.D. Fla., Sept. 2, 2021), is brought concerning defective sunscreen products containing benzene--a known human carcinogen--which were manufactured, sold, and distributed by Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("J&J") and its related entities, including entities that are represented to be defunct such as the Neutrogena Corporation. According to the complaint, Defendant J&J markets, distributes, and sells sunscreen products containing benzene while misrepresenting as safe its Defective Sunscreens and deceptively concealing the fact that the products are prone to increase the risk of skin cancer and other diseases, including leukemia, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and anemia--all found to be caused by or linked to benzene. Because of the common, uniform Defect, the Defendant's sunscreen products often fail to perform as they should. Instead of protecting the Plaintiff and other sunscreen product users from the risk of cancer, the presence of benzene within the Defective Sunscreens actually increases sunscreen users' chances of developing a host of diseases caused by or linked to benzene, including leukemia, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and anemia. The Plaintiff and the Classes also suffered damages as a result of te Defendant's concealment and suppression of the facts concerning the safety, quality, and reliability of the Defendant's Defective Sunscreens. The Defendant's false representations and omissions concerning the safety and reliability of those sunscreen products and the Defendant's concealment of the known safety defect plaguing those products and its brand caused the Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase the Defendant's sunscreen products of diminished value. Had the Defendant's customers known that the sunscreen products they were using to decrease the risk of skin cancer actually contained excessive levels of a known carcinogen, the Defendant's customers certainly would not have purchased those products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased at least one of the Defective Sunscreens sold by J&J. J&J is one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of sunscreen.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Prieto, Esq. John Gravante, Esq. Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. One S.E. Third Ave, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 358-2800 Fax: (305) 358-2382 Email: pprieto@podhurst.com jgravante@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com JORGE HADDOCK: Must Respond to Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramos-Ramos, et al., v. Haddock et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01232 (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez entered an order directing that Defendants shall respond to motion for class certification not later than September 28, 2021. The suit involves civil rights related violations.[CC] KAMAYA ELECTRIC: Settlement Hearings in Linear Resistors Suit Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO: All persons and entities in Canada who purchased linear resistors or a product containing linear resistors between July 9, 2003 and September 14, 2015 (the "Settlement Class Members"). If you bought an electronic device containing linear resistors between July 9, 2003 and September 14, 2015 ("Class Period"), such as computers, smartphones, gaming consoles, home appliances and televisions, among other products you may be a Settlement Class Member and your legal rights could be affected. READ THE COMPLETE PUBLIC NOTICE WHAT DO I NEED TO DO AT THIS TIME? If you do not oppose the proposed settlement, you do not need to appear at the hearings or take any other action at this time. In the interim, we recommend you retain all purchase receipts for linear resistors or products containing linear resistors made during the Class Period. Should you wish to be kept up to date as these Class Actions proceed, you can register with Class Counsel at the contact information below. If you want to tell the courts what you think about the proposed settlement or speak to the courts at the hearings mentioned above, you must send your written submissions to Foreman & Company, 4 Covent Market Place, London ON N6A 1E2 or by e-mail to classactions@foremancompany.com, which must be received by November 17, 2021 at the latest. Contact information for Class Counsel can be found below. Class Counsel will provide all such submissions to the appropriate Court. In the Class Actions, a settlement has been reached with Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd. and Kamaya, Inc. (collectively "Kamaya"). The Kamaya defendants are the second group of defendants to enter into a settlement in the Class Actions. Kamaya has agreed to pay CAD $770,000 (the "Settlement Amount") for the benefit of Settlement Class Members. Kamaya has also agreed to provide meaningful early co-operation to the plaintiffs in pursuing their claims against the other defendants. In exchange, Kamaya will be provided with a full release of the claims against them and the Class Actions against them will be dismissed. The settlement, which was negotiated over several months, is not an admission by Kamaya of liability, fault, or wrongdoing, but is a compromise of disputed claims. The plaintiffs sought and were granted certification / authorization of the Class Actions in Ontario and Quebec for settlement purposes only. The settlement is subject to court approval. There will be settlement approval hearings in Ontario and Quebec. These hearings are to take place at: -- the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on November 25th, 2021 at 3:00pm by virtual hearing; and -- the Superior Court of Quebec on November 23rd at 9:30am at 1, rue Notre-Dame Est, Montreal, Quebec, Room 15.10, and by virtual hearing whose designation and ID address will be indicated later on the following website: https://www.recourscollectif.info/en/cases/resistances_lineaire/ The courts will decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of Settlement Class Members. [GN] KEESLER FEDERAL: Court Amends Case Management Schedule in Lloyd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIRLEY LLOYD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KEESLER FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00351-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden entered an order as follows: 1. The Parties' request to extend the deadline to complete class discovery to October 15, 2021 is granted. 2. The Parties' request to allow Plaintiff until November 15, 2021 to file her motion for class certification is granted. 3. No further extensions of these deadlines will be granted. Keesler Federal Credit Union is a credit union headquartered in Biloxi, Mississippi, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration of the U.S. federal government. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EnMxdT at no extra charge.[CC] KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Dansky Sues Over Defective CPAP Devices ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL DANSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-16582-RBK-AMD (D.N.J., Sept. 8, 2021) seeks to recover damages based on Philips' alleged breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, misrepresentations, omissions, and breaches of state consumer protection laws in connection with its manufacture, marketing and sales of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure (Bi-Level PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators containing polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR foam). On April 26, 2021, Philips made a public announcement disclosing it had determined there were risks that the PE-PUR Foam used in certain CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices it manufactured may degrade or off-gas under certain circumstances. On June 14, 2021, Royal Philips issued a recall in the United States of its CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices containing PE-PUR Foam, because Philips had determined that (a) the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation. Allegedly, Philips repeatedly advertised on the labels and packing for the Recalled Devices, on Philips' websites, and through national advertising campaigns, among other items, that the Recalled Devices were safe and fit for human use. Philips failed to disclose the material information that the PE-PUR Foam used in the Recalled Devices, and therefore the Recalled Devices themselves, were unsafe and unfit for human use, the suit added. As a direct and proximate result of Philips' alleged unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass have suffered actual damages in that they purchased the Recalled Devices (a) that were worth less than the price they paid, (b) which they would not have purchased at all had they known of the health risks, including organ failure and cancer, associated with the use of the Recalled Devices, and (c) which did not conform to the Recalled Devices' labels, packaging, advertising, and statements. Koninklijke Philips NV is a health technology company focused on improving people's health across the health continuum from healthy living and prevention, to diagnosis, treatment, and home care. The Company offers products and services in diagnostic imaging, image-guided therapy, patient monitoring and health informatics, as well as in consumer health and home care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph L. Messa, Jr., Esq. Ashley B. DiLiberto, Esq. MESSA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2000 Academy Drive, Suite 200 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 810-9500 Facsimile: (856) 810-9918 E-mail: adiliberto@messalaw.com jmessa@messalaw.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Scheibel Files Suit in D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al. The case is styled as Robert Scheibel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02405-KHV-KGG (D. Kan., Sept. 15, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 West 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Phone: (913) 901-0505 Fax: (913) 901-0419 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com KROGER CO: Ct. Amends June 18, 2021 Scheduling Order in Solano -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, DONNA JUEL, RICK VENEMAN, PAUL RUGGLES, ROBERT ANDERSON, ARLENE JOHNSTON, HOLLY SIMONE, KATHLEEN ZACH, MICHAEL TEEGARDEN, CAROLYN ESPINOZA, DENISE CONROY, individually and on, behalf of other customers, v. THE KROGER CO., dba FRED MEYER, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-AC (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge John V. Acosta entered an order that the June 18, 2021 Order amending scheduling order and bifurcating discovery shall be amended as follows: -- "Class Certification Fact Discovery is to be completed by 9/17/2021" shall be changed to "Class Certification Fact Discovery is to be completed by 12/16/2021"; -- "Motion for Class Certification is to be filed by Sept. 23, 2021" shall be changed to "Motion for Class Certification is to be filed by December 22, 2021;" and -- All other remaining deadlines and provisions under the Court’s June 18, 2021, Order Amending Scheduling Order and Bifurcating Discovery shall remain in place. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nKBTrO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Nichols, Esq. HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN LLP 15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 250 Portland, OR 97224 Telephone: (503) 334-0611 E-mail: dan@hbclawyers.com - and - Michael Fuller, Esq. OLSENDAINES US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 222-2000 E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com - and - Kelly D. Jones, Esq. Young Walgenkim, Esq. Telephone: (503) 383-1496 E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com young@hansonwalgenkim.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin H. Kono, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201-5610 Telephone: (503) 241-2300 E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com - and - Frederick B. Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 757-8016 E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com - and - Jacob M. Harper, Esq. James H. Moon, Esq. 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 E-mail: jharper@dwt.com jamesmoon@dwt.com LANNETT CO: Class Certification Bid in Pennsylvania Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the motion for class certification in the putative class action suit filed before the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, has been granted. In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its former officers in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company and two of its former officers damaged the purported class by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls. In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third amended complaint alleging that the Company and two of its former officers made false and misleading statements regarding the impact of competition on prices and sales of certain of the Company's products, regarding the potential effects on the Company of regulatory investigations and antitrust litigation, and regarding the defendants' investigation of purported anticompetitive conduct. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On October 1, 2020, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for class certification. In March 2021, the Company filed a brief in opposition to the motion to certify the putative class. On August 12, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting the motion and certifying the class. In August 2021, the court granted the motion to certify the proposed class, to appoint class representatives, and to appoint class counsel. Lannett said, "The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and continues to vigorously defend itself from these claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time." Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LANNETT CO: Court Junks Contaminated Ranitidine Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the Court in the consolidated class action complaint related to contaminated ranitidine, granted the Company's motion to dismiss Master Personal Injury Complaint, Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint and Consolidated third Party Payor Class Complaint, all based on federal preemption. On June 1, 2020, a class action complaint was served upon the Company and approximately forty-five (45) other companies asserting claims for personal injury arising from the presence of N-Nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA") in Ranitidine products. The complaint is consolidated in a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Similar complaints were filed in state court in New Mexico and state court in Maryland and served upon the Company. Subsequently, a number of similar complaints were served on the Company. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the MDL which, on December 31, 2020, was granted with leave to amend as to certain of the claims. The plaintiffs filed a First Amended complaint on February 9, 2021, to which the generic manufacturer defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss all claims. On July 8, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and dismissing all claims with prejudice based on federal preemption. Separately, the New Mexico case was conditionally transferred to the MDL, but ultimately remanded back to the state court. Since the Company was not licensed to do business in New Mexico and, based upon the information received to date, did not sell Ranitidine in New Mexico, we plan to file a motion to dismiss based, among other things, federal preemption and lack of jurisdiction. Separately, the Company filed a notice to remove and transfer the Maryland case to the MDL which the plaintiff has opposed. On April 1, 2021, the case was remanded back to the state court. On August 17, 2021, Helena Hilbert & William Hilbert III, Individually and on behalf of their minor child "WH", filed a complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against the Company and approximately seven other defendants, alleging personal injury as a result of using the Company's Ranitidine products. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss all of the pending state claims, among other reasons, based on federal preemption. Lannett said, "The Company has placed its insurance carrier on notice of the claim and the carrier has appointed counsel to defend the Company." Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LANNETT COMPANY: Utesch Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Utesch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. Lannett Company, Inc., ARTHUR P. BEDROSIAN, MARTIN P. GALVAN, Case No. 2:21-mc-01056, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 14, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-mc-00066-WB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions. Lannett Company -- https://www.lannett.com/ -- has been providing high-quality, affordable generic pharmaceutical products for over 75 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian D. Berg, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP 214 Canterbury Ct. Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: (484) 370-2062 Email: iberg@aftlaw.com - and - Takeo A. Kellar, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 764-2580 Fax: (858) 764-2582 Email: tkellar@aftlaw.com LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Stanfield Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDITH STANFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASALLE CORRECTIONS WEST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01535-DJH (D. Ariz., Sept. 8, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Stanfield was employed by the Defendant as nurse. LASALLE CORRECTIONS WEST, LLC developer and operator of correctional centers throughout the States of Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Georgia. Since 1997, LaSalle has been providing corrections industry solutions to law enforcement agencies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Lowery, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com LEND LEASE: Court Narrows Claims in Burn Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SSGT GARRETT BURN, et al., v. LEND LEASE (US) PUBLIC PARTNERSIIlPS LLC, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-00174-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss; 2. granting the plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice; and 3. granting the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record. The Court said, "Defendants move to strike plaintiffs' class allegations. A motion to strike a complaint's class allegations under Rule 12(f) should be granted when it is clear from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's requirements for certification because the plaintiff has failed to properly allege facts sufficient to make out a class. Generally, however, courts do not strike class allegations at the pleadings stage but instead allow for pre-certification discovery before making a certification decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1). On September 18, 2020, Staff Sergeant Garrett Bum and his wife Kalie Bum and Corporal William Lewis and his wife Lakin Lewis filed a complaint alleging claims under the North Carolina law claims for breach of contract, negligence, and nuisance; and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against Lend Lease (US) Public Partnerships LLC, Lend Lease (US) Public Partnerships Holdings LLC, AMCC Managing Member LLC, Atlantic Marine Corps Communities, LLC, AMCC Property Management LLC, Atlantic Marine Corps Communities Property Management, LLC, Winn Management Group LLC, and WR South LLC. The Defendants are entities of Lend Lease and who own and manage over 4,000 housing units on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune under a 50-year ground lease with the United States Department of the Navy. The Defendants are part of a network of interconnected business activities. The Plaintiffs are service members and their spouses who lived in defendants' privatized military housing at MCB Camp Lejeune between 2015 and 2019. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCT9Py at no extra charge.[CC] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Hill Bid to Certify Class Moot ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Bureau LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00560 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an order: 1. finding as moot the motion to certify class; 2. finding as moot motion to strike expert reports of Vivek Shah, PH.D.; and 3. finding as moot the motion for leave to file reply suggestions under seal. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Practices Act involving consumer credit. LexisNexis is a reseller of credit information.[CC] LIVE VENTURES: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Live Ventures Incorporated ("Live" or "the Company") (NASDAQ : LIVE) investors that acquired securities between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. It is alleged in this complaint that Live made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Live's earnings per share for fiscal year 2016 was, in reality, only $6.33 per share; (2) that Live used an artificially low share count in order to boost the earnings per share by 40%; (3) that Live had overstated it's pre-tax income for the fiscal year 2016 by 20%, by including $915,500 of 'other income' related to certain amendments that had not been negotiated until after the close of the fiscal year; (4) that Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did not close within the first quarter 2017; (5) that using an 'acquisition date' of December 30, 2017 and recognizing income therefrom did not conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) that, by falsely stating that the acquisition closed during the first quarter 2017, Live recognized bargain purchase gain, enabling the Company to report positive net income in what would otherwise have been an unprofitable quarter; (7) that between fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2018, Live's CEO received approximately 94% more in compensation than had been disclosed to investors; and (8) Live's statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times, as a result. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] LIVE VENTURES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Live Ventures Incorporated (NASDAQ: LIVE) between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 12, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Live 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 Live class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2137.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 12, 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, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Live's earnings per share for fiscal year ("FY") 2016 was actually only $6.33 per share; (2) Live used an artificially low share count to boost the earnings per share by 40%; (3) Live had overstated pre-tax income for fiscal 2016 by 20% by including $915,500 of "other income" related to certain amendments that were not negotiated until after the close of the fiscal year; (4) Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did not close during first quarter 2017; (5) using December 30, 2017 as the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did not conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) by falsely stating that the acquisition closed during the quarter, Live recognized bargain purchase gain, which enabled Live to report positive net income in what would otherwise have been an unprofitable quarter; (7) between FY 2016 and FY 2018, Live's CEO received approximately 94% more in compensation than was disclosed to investors; and (8) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Live class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2137.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. Contacts 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] LOANDEPOT INC: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of November 5 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that on September 3, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Southern Division against loanDepot, Inc. (NYSE: LDI). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is February 16, 2021 through September 3, 2021. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-loandepot-inc/ The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all loanDepot, Inc. investors who purchased common stock during the Class Period. You may move the Court no later than November 5, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this litigation, or should you have any questions regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Priscilla Scoggins at pms@federmanlaw.com or visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com. [GN] LOANDEPOT INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of November 8 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Sept. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired loanDepot, Inc. ("loanDepot" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDI) shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with loanDepot's February 16, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). loanDepot investors have until November 8, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. In February 2021, loanDepot completed its initial public offering ("IPO"), selling 3.85 million shares of Class A common stock at $14.00 per share. By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's stock price fell 42% below the IPO price after the Company disclosed disappointing second quarter 2021 financial results and provided significantly lower guidance for its business. 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) loanDepot's refinance originations had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO due to industry over-capacity and increased competition; (2) loanDepot's gain-on-sale margins had already declined substantially at the time of the IPO; (3) as a result, loanDepot's revenue and growth would be negatively impacted; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased loanDepot securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 8, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased loanDepot securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] LOANDEPOT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Sept. 7 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against loanDepot, Inc. ("loanDepot" or "the Company") (NYSE: LDI) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on February 16, 2021 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 8, 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. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. LoanDepot's refinance originations were in decline at the time of the IPO due to competition amongst other factors. The Company's gain-on-sale margins had also fallen significantly at the same time. Both declines would impact the Company's financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about loanDepot, investors suffered damages. 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. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] MASSACHUSETTS DOR: Green Suit Removed to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Julian Green, Eugene Ivey, James P Mckenna, Lisa Newman-Polk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Massachusetts Department of Correction; Carol Mici, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction, in her official capacity; Premier Biotech, Inc., Case No. 2184CV01713 was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Sept. 14, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-11504-GAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. The Massachusetts Department of Correction -- https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts-department-of-correction -- is responsible for operating the prison system of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet M. Herold, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 123 William Street, 16th Flr. New York, NY 10038 Phone: (518) 732-6703 Email: jherold@justicecatalyst.org The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth B. Walton, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP One International Place, Suite 350 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (857) 313-3936 Email: ken.walton@lewisbrisbois.com MATRIX ABSENCE: Settlement Talks in "Weeks" Extended to 30 Days ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina Weeks, et al. v. Matrix Absence Management Incorporated, Case No. 2:20-cv-00884-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order granting the joint motion to extend the deadline to engage in settlement talks to 30 days after the Court's ruling on class certification. Matrix is an insurance company that provides services like disability managemennt and workman compensation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hK8OZL at no extra charge.[CC] METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN A. PITT, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to MICHAEL A. PITT, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of MICHAEL A. PITT, and on Behalf of the Class, v. METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00694-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel E. Butcher entered an order granting the joint motion and stipulation for additional discovery for class certification and for briefing class certification as follows: -- All discovery for Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be completed on or before October 15, 2021. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed on or before November 1, 2021. -- Counsel must contact the Court's chambers regarding setting all remaining case management dates within three days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification. Metropolitan Tower operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XrVMJs at no extra charge.[CC] MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Faces Public Housing Discrimination Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- On September 7, 2021, Kimberly Lowry filed a class action challenging the alleged discrimination faced by public housing tenants in Minneapolis due to their housing conditions. The lawsuit alleges that the City of Minneapolis discriminated on the basis of "public assistance status" by failing to provide public housing tenants the inspection, licensing, maintenance, and related services that the City provides to tenants in privately-owned rental dwellings. Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and Community Housing Resources are also named defendants, with the lawsuit alleging that they breached the terms of their leases with tenants by failing to obtain licenses and inspections and respond to maintenance requests. The lawsuit goes on to allege consumer protection and housing law violations against all three defendants. According to Ms. Lowry's complaint, she has experienced a multitude of dangerous and substandard conditions within her rental home, including sewage backing up into her basement, dirt and water intrusion and flooding, loose asbestos floor tile, and peeling paint. "Public housing tenants deserve decent, sanitary housing. They deserve housing that complies with the law," said one of Ms. Lowry's attorneys, Anna Prakash of Nichols Kaster, PLLP. "The fundamental health and safety protections the law provides should not be dependent on whether someone receives public assistance." Ms. Lowry is represented by Anna P. Prakash and Nicole J. Schladt of Nichols Kaster, PLLP; John R. Shoemaker and Paul F. Shoemaker of Shoemaker & Shoemaker, PLLC; and Larry McDonough. The case is Lowry v. City of Minneapolis, et. al, Case No. 27-CV-21-10928, and is filed in Minnesota's Fourth Judicial District Court. Media Contact: Anna P. Prakash, Nichols Kaster, LLP, +1 (612) 256-3200, aprakash@nka.com [GN] MONRO INC: Kiaunis Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages & 401(k) Plans ----------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD KIAUNIS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONRO, INC. d/b/a MONRO AUTO SERVICE AND TIRE CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00494-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va., September 3, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants seeking all available relief under the Virginia Overtime Wage Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a technician or senior technician in Virginia since approximately 2010. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- Despite typically working approximately 45-50 hours each week, the Defendant did pay him overtime premium for any hours worked in excess of 40 in any given workweek; -- The Defendant unlawfully deducted lunchtime from his working hours, regardless of whether he was relieved of duty during lunch or not, despite frequently working through "lunch breaks;" -- The Defendant failed in its duty to the 401(k) Plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and -- The Defendant failed to avoid causing the 401(k) Plan to engage in prohibited transactions. The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover unpaid overtime damages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest to the fullest extent permitted under the law, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff also seeks payment to the 401(k) Plan of all unpaid employee and employer matching contributions, together with lost opportunity cost and lost profits to be paid back to the Plaintiff's and the Virginia ERISA Subclass' plan accounts. Monro, Inc. provides automobile maintenance and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Head Injury Risk Class Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Nick Verderame, Esq., of Plattner Verderame PC, disclosed that a proposed class action lawsuit filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and University of Notre Dame highlights the risks of brain injuries to athletes, right as high school and college football season gets under way. Filed in Indiana federal court, this suit claims that both the school and the NCAA failed to warn student athletes of the long-term risks of head trauma suffered during sports. The lawsuit alleges that, up until 2010, both the school and the NCAA concealed the fact that repeated head trauma could lead to long-term and permanent brain injury, and failed to provide athletes adequate warning and protection. Over decades, the plaintiff claims, the university contributed to "an epidemic that was slowly killing former college athletes." Lead plaintiff Mary Elizabeth Morrison, whose husband is a former Notre Dame football player, states that a regular season of play was the equivalent of subjecting an athlete to hundreds of repeated car accidents, yet the school and governing authorities allowed them to do so anyway: For decades, defendants NCAA and Notre Dame knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries . . . that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of ‘amateur' college football. Morrison's husband Richard currently suffers from several physical and mental conditions as a result of his time playing college football, including memory loss, dementia, neurocognitive disorder, and depression. The lawsuit targets Notre Dame and NCAA for negligence and breach of contract, and aims to represent all affected Notre Dame football players between 1952 and 2010. Because the NCAA did not implement concussion protocol until 2010, after a blow to the head players often returned to the field without proper treatment. These repetitive and cumulative injuries can lead to long-term injuries, like chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Brain injuries aren't just a football problem Although the national conversation tends to center around football players, anyone can suffer a brain injury. For example, a 2017 study showed that high school female soccer players had a significantly higher concussion rate than any other school sport. Boys baseball and girls volleyball also had the highest increase in concussion rate during the study period. High level cheerleading also accounts for a variety of head and neck injuries. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons reports the following sports and recreational activities as contributing to the highest number of head and brain injuries treated in U.S. hospitals: Cycling:64,411 Football:51,892 Playground Equipment:38,915 Basketball:38,898 Exercise & Equipment: 37,045 Powered Recreational Vehicles: 30,222 Soccer:26,955 Baseball and Softball:24,516 Rugby/Lacrosse:10,901 Skateboards:10,573 Trampolines:8,956 Hockey:7,668 Skating:7,143 Golf:6,357 Horseback Riding:6,141 Why are concussions so dangerous? A concussion is a type of traumatic brain injury (TBI) caused by a blow, bump, or hit to the head. Any jolt to the head or body that causes the brain to bounce around can cause a TBI. One of the many myths surrounding concussions is that they cause loss of consciousness -- this is untrue. In fact, the CDC reports most concussions occur without loss of consciousness. Further, athletes who have suffered one concussion are more at risk to suffer another. Repeated impact to the head can lead to more severe concussion and TBI symptoms, as well as ongoing health issues like problems with concentration, memory, balance skills, and headaches. Scientists are also studying the link between CTE and traumatic brain injuries. CTE is a brain disease that affects how the brain works, and symptoms tend to be similar to those with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. However, CTE can only be diagnosed post-mortem, so much more research is needed. What are the signs and symptoms of a concussion? The symptoms of a brain injury may show up immediately following the injury, or can take several days. This is why, if an athlete experiences a blow or jolt to the head or body, they should be taken out of play and returned only after a professional evaluation. Warning signs of a concussion include: Headache Nausea or vomiting Loss of consciousness, even briefly Dizziness or balance problems Blurry or double vision Light or noise sensitivity Confusion Concentration or memory problems Can't recall events immediately prior to or after injury If an athlete shows serious danger signs like one pupil larger than the other, slurred speech, seizures, overly drowsy, or becomes weak or loses coordination, they should receive medical attention as soon as possible. What is second impact syndrome? Second impact syndrome (SIS) is a rare but potentially fatal condition that can happen when an athlete suffers a second brain injury before fully recovering from the first. Although researchers are not clear on exactly why SIS occurs in some people and not others, the NCBI reports that this "catastrophic injury results from the dysfunctional cerebral blood flow autoregulation leading to an increase in intracranial pressure." This pressure can be deadly if not treated immediately. The NCBI describes as an example the case of an athlete returning to practice five days after an initial concussion. Although he had a normal CT scan, he complained of persistent headaches. After a hit at practice one day later, he collapsed after complaining of more headaches and being unable to feel his legs. Another CT scan showed subdural hematomas and other brain injuries. The organization recommends, "Parents and athletes should be educated on the potential complications of a concussion, symptoms, and an expected time course for recovery. Included in this would be discussing the potential problems related to returning to play too soon, including prolonged recovery, persistent symptoms, and a second impact syndrome." [GN] NATIONAL WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harris Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARWIN HARRIS; JESSIE BLACKWELL; and JASON MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL WATERPROOFING & ROOFING, LLC; and KIRK POTEET, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01537-SPL (D. Ariz., Sept. 9, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as laborer. NATIONAL WATERPROOFING & ROOFING, LLC installs roofing systems, re-roof existing buildings, and provides waterproofing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Lowery, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com NCAA: Former Notre Dame Footballer Sues Over Head Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------- Marek Mazurek at South Bend Tribune reports that a former University of Notre Dame football defensive lineman who played on the 1988 championship team recently filed a class action lawsuit accusing the school and the NCAA of failing to warn players about the dangers of concussions. The suit, filed by Richard Morrison last month, alleges Notre Dame and the NCAA "recklessly disregarded" information related to the medical dangers of concussions and head injuries to "protect the very profitable business of 'amateur' college football." Morrison played nose tackle for Notre Dame from 1985 to 1988 and was a defensive lineman on the 1988 national championship team. He and his wife live in Virginia, per court filings. According to the suit, Morrison now suffers from short-term memory loss, emotional instability, depression, speech difficulty, insomnia, tinnitus, major neurocognitive disorder and dementia, among other conditions, as a result of head injuries suffered while playing football. The suit alleges both Notre Dame and the NCAA had a duty to educate players about the long-term effects of concussions, but failed to warn athletes about those risks and failed to monitor their health both during and after games. Morrison sites a number of studies, from as early as 1905 to the 2000s, arguing the NCAA and Notre Dame should have been aware of the negative long-term effects of head injuries and taken steps to protect players. During a typical football season, college athletes subject themselves to the "equivalent of repeated car accidents," the suit says. Concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, commonly known as CTE, can cause long-term brain damage, behavioral issue and Parkinson's disease. "While the NCAA and Notre Dame knew of the harmful effects of [head injuries] on athletes for decades, they ignored these facts and failed to institute any meaningful methods of warning and/or protecting the athletes," the suit says. "For defendants, the continued expansion and operation of college football was simply too profitable to put at risk." Attempts to reach Morrison were unsuccessful and attorneys representing him in the lawsuit did not return multiple requests for interviews. Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said the university would not comment until it had been served with the lawsuit. Messages and phone calls to the NCAA were not returned. Neither the NCAA nor Notre Dame have filed responses to Morrison's complaint in court. The suit is one of several complaints that have been filed in recent years against universities and the NCAA for concussion-related injuries. In 2016, a number of similar concussion lawsuits consolidated and reached a $75 million settlement with the NCAA. The NCAA is putting the vast majority of that money toward concussion screenings and diagnoses for former college athletes and donating $5 million for research. That settlement did not require the NCAA to admit wrongdoing and allows other class action suits against the organization and individual schools. In 2017, a pair of former Purdue University football players sued the NCAA and the Big Ten conference and are currently seeking to make the proceedings a class action lawsuit open to other former Boilermakers. The first major concussion-related lawsuit filed on behalf of a former college athlete to make it to trial also happened in 2017, though the widow of a former University of Texas football player settled with the NCAA on the third day of the trial. Notre Dame has previously reckoned with concussions when former football star and university trustee Dave Duerson was posthumously diagnosed with CTE by Boston University researches after he shot and killed himself in 2011. [GN] NCAA: Judge Allows HBCU Class-Action Lawsuit to Move Forward ------------------------------------------------------------ hbcugameday.com reports that a U.S. District Court handed a first victory to a group of Black student-athletes at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) seeking to change NCAA rules that they claim intentionally discriminate against and punish them. The case, filed in 2020, claims that the NCAA's Academic Performance Program (APP) - ostensibly designed to improve student-athlete academic performance - in fact undermines the HBCU mission to serve the historically underserved Black community, including Black student-athletes. It further alleges that the NCAA knew the APP was racially discriminatory but enacted and enforced it anyway. On Sept. 14, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young denied the NCAA's motion to dismiss the suit in part, ruling that the claims of two former student-athletes could move forward. If the case is certified by the court as a class action, the case would represent the hundreds of HBCU student-athletes who have been negatively impacted by the program. "We are gratified and encouraged that the court sees the importance of this issue and the APP's negative effects on Black student-athletes," said Elizabeth Fegan, founding partner and managing member of FeganScott. "The NCAA's blunt application of the APP has detrimentally impacted the academic and athletic careers of many student athletes. We look forward to presenting the evidence to the court." The suit alleges that the APP applies post-season bans that deny players opportunity to compete with their peers and receive all the privileges, accolades and media coverage that come with post-season play, which may affect their career trajectories and potentially lucrative post-college benefits. The suit maintains that the bans interfere with the contracts formed between institutions and their athletes, arguing that players are prevented from receiving the full benefits of their contracts and the athletes and schools cannot access greater publicity and revenue from highly publicized events. HBCU teams are 43 times more likely to receive such bans than teams at other, predominantly white institutions. According to the 20-page ruling, plaintiffs Troyce Manassa and Austin Dasent have plausibly alleged unequal treatment and the injuries caused by the NCAA's intentionally-created unequal system. Beyond the injuries caused by the APP system and denial of the privileges and benefits enjoyed by their peers and predominantly white institutions, and unequal access to career, scouting, and other opportunities, the plaintiffs also allege mental and emotional harm, humiliation, embarrassment and degradation. The Court further ruled that, at this stage, the Plaintiffs' claims should not be barred as untimely because they allege they did not discover the discriminatory purpose of the APP until just before filing suit. "We missed out on post-season opportunities because of a system that the NCAA knew would punish Black student-athletes," said Troyce Manassa, plaintiff and former guard for the Savannah State University men's basketball team. "The NCAA is robbing student-athletes at HBCUs of the opportunities to experience what every college athlete strives for when they join a Division 1 school as a student-athlete: playing in post-season championship games and tournaments." "The NCAA knew that the APP would negatively affect Black student athletes at HBCUs," said Austin Dasent, plaintiff and a former member of the Savannah State University men's basketball team. "You can't keep moving the goal posts and call it reform when, at the end of the day, Black student-athletes at HBCUs are not given the same tools and opportunities to succeed even before we hit the fields and courts." Although claims will be allowed to progress for Manassa and Dasent, the court did dismiss claims against NCAA's Board of Directors and the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors. "As we've seen from the June ruling in NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA is not above the law, nor is it above its history of racial bias," said Je Yon Jung, senior attorney at May Lightfoot Law and co-counsel on the case. "The time is long overdue to expose the history and actions of the NCAA to continue to segregate black student athletes at HBCUs. We cannot forget that more than 80% of postseason bans go to HBCUs. You don't get that level of impact by accident. " The suit seeks compensation and punitive damages on behalf of all Black student-athletes who participated in Division I NCAA sports at HBCUs from 2010 to present and who were injured through the implementation of the APP program.[GN] NEW ORLEANS, LA: November 2 Hearing in Landfill Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Bagneris Firm disclosed that this case is entitled John Johnson, et al. versus Orleans Parish School Board, et al., Civil District Court, No. 93-14333 and consolidated cases, Division "J". This case involves a neighborhood located in the 9th ward of New Orleans that was built atop a toxic waste dump. The federal government confirmed the danger posed by the neighborhood from exposure to 149 contaminants, including 49 which caused cancer, in 1994 when it declared the community a Superfund site (one of the most contaminated sites in the United States.) The residents, led by Attorney Suzette Bagneris, filed a lawsuit against the City of New Orleans, Housing Authority of New Orleans (and its insurers), and Orleans Parish School Board who developed homes, an elementary school, a public housing development, housing for the elderly, and businesses atop the landfill with the knowledge that the soil was contaminated. In 2006, former Judge Nadine Ramsey ruled in their favor after a very extension trial and order the City, the School Board, HANO, and four insurers of the housing authority to pay the residents, school children, school employees, and business owners for emotional distress and property damages. Judge Ramsey blasted the city for lying to the residents and doing "virtually nothing to address the fact that there are citizens of this city, in particular, children, the most vulnerable of the population, living on a toxic waste dump," Ramsey wrote. It was not the plaintiffs who developed low-income housing and a school on a former landfill. They were given the promise of the American Dream of homeownership wrapped in a poisonous box. After countless appeals by the Defendants, the insurers were able to get a ruling decreasing the amount of available insurance for HANO's insurance from an unlimited pot to only $14 million. The $14 million was disbursed using guidelines set by the Court (then Judge Tiffany Chase). For years, the Plaintiffs' Counsel has been trying to chase down the remainder of the money. The City and OPSB have never paid a dime. On November 2, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., Judge D. Nicole Sheppard, the Judge who is now presiding over this Class Action, will consider a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiffs to get this matter moving towards a resolution. You are not required to attend the hearing. [GN] NEW YORK TIMES: Court Hears Renewal Fraud Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Inner City Press reports that Maribel Moses sued The New York Times for automatic renewal fraud, in a then-putative class actions. On September 10 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Ronnie Abrams held a hearing on final approval of class action settlement. Inner City Press covered it. Most of the questioning was into attorneys' fees, and the incentive award of $5000 for the named plaintiff. Alan Isaacson, characterized by the parties as a serial objector, said she should not be deemed an adequate class representative" after she asked for $5000. But, the opposition says, Isaacson had just this argument denied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019. Judge Abrams said the settlement, fees and incentive award are fair. The case is Moses v. The New York Times Company, 20-cv-4658 (Abrams) [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Averts Class Action Over Foster Care System --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Fitzgerald, writing for The Imprint, reports that a federal judge has denied the latest attempt by a pioneering legal advocate for foster children to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against New York City. In a Sept. 3 decision, Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District Court of New York did not rule on the merits of the long-running case alleging that children taken from their parents had been poorly cared for and had spent too long in foster care. But she sided with the city and state in denying "class certification" to the group of 19 youth, concluding that the litigators representing the foster children had not demonstrated common "questions of law or fact" in their struggles, or that their challenges were typical among the more than 7,000 kids in city foster care. She also noted plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated which policy or institutions were most clearly responsible for what they faced in foster care. "Countless decisions by numerous stakeholders -- children, parents, advocates, and judges, to name a few -- make each child's case unique," the judge wrote. She added that an expert report on the foster care system's deficiencies presented by the plaintiffs offered only "weak evidence" that the children had all "suffered the same injury." [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Elisa W.'s Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELISA W., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-5273 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied: (i) a Daubert motion filed by the City Defendants seeking to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert witness, and (ii) a renewed motion by the Plaintiffs for class certification. Background The action was brought in 2015 on behalf of 19 children in foster care in New York City. The Plaintiffs assert a range of constitutional and statutory claims against both New York City and the State of New York, based on alleged systemic failures in the New York City foster care system, including a failure to exercise proper oversight over the agencies responsible for the day-to-day care of children. The mission of the New York City Administration for Children's Service ("ACS") is to "protect and promote the safety and well-being of New York City's children, young people, families, and communities by providing excellent child welfare, juvenile justice, and early care and education services." ACS receives reports of maltreatment or suspected abuse from a statewide reporting system and is required to investigate whether a child may safely remain in the care of their parents. In conducting this safety assessment, ACS balances the risks posed to the child by their parents against the harm of being removed from the home. New York City's foster care system is a complex operation involving state, city, and private actors. Broadly speaking, the New York State foster care system is supervised by the State but run locally. At the state level, the Division of Child Welfare and Community Services at the New York State Office of Children and Family Services ("OCFS") is responsible for the oversight of child welfare services. At the local level, services are administered by departments of social services. In New York City, that local department is ACS. Children in New York City foster care are thus placed in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS. There is little dispute that the foster care system faces challenges, which include delays in achieving permanency. In recent years, however, the New York City foster care system has improved greatly. Between 1992 and 2016, the number of children in the foster care system declined by nearly 80%. OCFS and ACS, in search of further improvements, also continue to develop new initiatives and programs. When ACS determines that intervention is necessary to protect a child, it initiates a child protective proceeding in New York State Family Court. That court has original jurisdiction over abuse and neglect proceedings. At a preliminary hearing, the family court determines whether removal of a child is necessary; if such a determination is made, the child may be placed in the custody of ACS or in the care of a relative or other suitable person. The named Plaintiffs in the case are 19 children, who were selected by counsel after a public outreach program to those "who have faced problems with the NYC foster care system." The Plaintiffs entered the foster care system between 2002 and 2015 and were cared for by 11 of the 26 agencies under contract with ACS. The Plaintiffs filed the initial Complaint on July 8, 2015, and the Amended Complaint on Dec. 29, 2015. The Amended Complaint asserts several causes of action against the City of New York, ACS, and the Commissioner of ACS, in her official capacity ("City Defendants"), as well as against the State of New York, OCFS, and the Commissioner of OCFS, in her official capacity ("State Defendants"). Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs have been, and are at risk of being deprived of constitutional rights protected by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; that City Defendants' actions constitute a pattern or practice of depriving Plaintiffs of various rights conferred upon them by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; that City Defendants' actions constitute a deprivation of rights conferred on Plaintiffs by various provisions of the New York State Social Services Law and regulations adopted thereto; and that City Defendants have breached and failed to enforce contracts between ACS and Contract Agencies. At bottom, the Plaintiffs assert that children in foster care in New York City are harmed by systemic deficiencies, including failures by OCFS and ACS to perform their respective oversight functions, and to enforce the terms of the agreements between ACS and the Contract Agencies. The Plaintiffs first moved for class certification toward the end of 2015, seeking to certify a class consisting of "children who are now or will be in the foster care custody of the Commissioner of New York City's Administration for Children's Services." On Sept. 27, 2016, the motion was denied by Chief Judge Swain, who held that the Plaintiffs had not met their burden to demonstrate that each of the requirements of Rule 23 had been satisfied. Accordingly, class certification was denied, "without prejudice to renewal on an evidentiary record that demonstrates satisfaction of the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) as to both the broad class and appropriate subclasses." Following the Sept. 27, 2016 Order, the parties engaged in fact and expert discovery for approximately two and a half years. On July 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, seeking to certify a class of "children who are now will be in the foster care custody of the Commissioner of ACS," as well as two subclasses consisting of (1) "all children who have been in ACS custody for more than two years and whose cases require 'special scrutiny' pursuant to ACS policy," and (2) "all children for whom Contract Agencies failed to assess and document compelling reasons every three months to justify the decision not to file a termination of parental rights ('TPR') petition after the children had been in care for 15 of the prior 22 months." After further discovery, City and State Defendants filed opposition briefs on Aug. 31, 2020 and September 21, respectively. On March 21, 2021, leave was granted for Brooklyn Defender Services, The Bronx Defenders, Center for Family Representation Inc., and Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem ("Parent Advocates"), to file an amicus curiae brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Parent Advocates' brief was filed on March 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs then filed a reply in support of class certification on April 1, 2021, and City and State Defendants each filed a surreply on April 8, 2021. In tandem with the briefing on class certification, the City Defendants brought a challenge to the admissibility of an expert report by the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Caroline Long. Dr. Long evaluated the case files of the 19 named Plaintiffs and concluded that each was subjected to the same six "policy and practice departures" -- namely, (1) failure to consider the child's and agency's respective characteristics during placement; (2) failure to engage in "concurrent planning" (which refers to a case worker developing a secondary permanency plan while advancing the child's primary permanency goal); (3) failure to ensure that Contract Agencies provide and monitor services for birth parents and caretakers; (4) failure to provide adequate and timely case documentation; (5) failure to give "special scrutiny" to foster in children in care for more than two years; and (6) failure to ensure that Contract Agencies comply with ACS' policies regarding permanency. On Jan. 11, 2021, the City Defendants filed a motion, pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to exclude the Long Report. On Feb. 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On March 3, 2021, the City Defendants filed a reply. Discussion I. City Defendants' Motion In their Daubert motion, the City Defendants seek the exclusion of the Long Report and of any testimony by Dr. Long and her team. The City Defendants do not argue that Dr. Long is not qualified in the field of social work, nor do they contend that her opinions would not be relevant or would not assist the Court. Rather, the City Defendants argue that the Long Report is not reliable, because it failed to adhere to the principles of the research methodology that Dr. Long chose to use -- Grounded Theory. These arguments, however, are unavailing, Judge Wood opines. She holds that the fact that Dr. Long was retained to explore a question -- whether or not there were case practice departures -- does not suggest that she embarked on her evaluation simply to confirm a hypothesis. There is no evidence that Dr. Long did not conduct her evaluation, as Grounded Theory demands, with an open-minded approach that does not "force data into theoretical accounts." Judge Wood also finds that the Long Report adhered to the central tenets of Grounded Theory, reflects an exercise of the "constant comparative method" that the theory calls for, and should not be excluded pursuant to Rule 702 and Daubert. She finds that Dr. Long and her team went "line by line" through the case files, took written notes as to instances that they considered to be case practice departures, reviewed and discussed their notes collectively, and identified "themes" that, in Dr. Long's opinion, connected the individual case departures. Lastly, City Defendants argue that the Long Report does not account for alternative explanations for why case practice departures may have occurred in a given child's case. Specifically, Dr. Long did not consider the major role occupied by the New York State Family Court system with respect to each child's case, and the fact that this system is often the cause for delays in permanency. Judge Wood opines that this flaw does not render the Long Report inadmissible. It does, however, detract significantly from the weight to be given to the Long Report. Because the Report ignored a key aspect of the foster care system, the Judge holds that it does not constitute strong evidence that there are common factors that result in delays to permanency or departures from ACS policy or practice. II. Renewed Motion for Class Certification The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "children who are now will be in the foster care custody of the Commissioner of ACS." Judge Wood finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to demonstrate that there are questions of law or fact common to the class, nor have they made an adequate showing that the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) have not been met. Consequently, she need not decide whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the remaining requirements of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Judge Wood notes that it goes without saying that any allegations regarding potential harm to children in foster care are of grave concern. The question, however, is whether the named Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate (among other things) that there are questions of law or fact common to a class of all children who are or will be in the foster care system of New York City, and that the named Plaintiffs are typical representatives of such a broad class. Because Judge Wood finds that the Plaintiffs have not offered sufficient evidence to satisfy that burden, the motion for class certification will be denied. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Judge Wood denied the two motions pending before the Court: The City Defendants' Daubert motion seeking to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert witness, and the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The parties were to file a joint letter addressing the next steps in the litigation on Sept. 13, 2021. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 504, 511, and 515. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4me2ddbz from Leagle.com. NORTH COAST: Bryant Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TENITA BRYANT, et al., v. NORTH COAST NATURAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01075-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action defined as follows: "All current and former employees of Defendants who were classified as salaried employees for the Collinwood Hemp Venture Employers as executive-level employees in Ohio in any workweek in the past three years ("FLSA Salaried Class");" and "All current and former employees of Defendants who were classified as hourly employees for the Collinwood Hemp Venture Employers as manufacturing workers (or an equivalent position) in Ohio in any workweek in the past three years ("FLSA Hourly Class"). However, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for Court- authorized notice and declines to approve the Notice and Consent Form as currently drafted. The Court orders Plaintiffs to submit an amended proposed Notice and Consent Form consistent with the above-noted revisions and directives within two weeks of receipt of this Order. While Plaintiffs have met their burden under the lenient standard applicable to the notification phase, the Court will revisit the "similarly situated" requirement once the opt-in forms are submitted. If the Claimants are not similarly situated after further discovery, the Court will decertify the Class and the Opt-in Plaintiffs will be dismissed without prejudice. Beginning January 1, 2019, the Defendants North Coast Natural Solutions, LLC; North Coast 5 Natural Solutions Corporation; Level 5 Global International Holdings Corporation; Tierney Williams; Dr. Jenny Enterprises, LLC; Vital Life Institute, LLC; Jenny P. Wilkins; and William M. Wilkins hired Plaintiffs to work in a facility for the production of industrial hemp located at 12735 Kirby Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44108. The Plaintiffs were never paid. The Plaintiffs assert unpaid minimum wage claims under both the FLSA and Ohio law on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees. 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The FLSA requires Defendants to pay their non-exempt employees minimum wages. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i3yf8P at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Worker Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN E. CARROLL, GERALDINE P. CORRIGAN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly-Situated, v. NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a ABERDEEN BARN STEAKHOUSE, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00115-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the following class of putative Opt-In Plaintiffs, in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): "All persons who currently work or formerly worked at the Aberdeen Barn Steakhouse for Northampton Restaurants, Inc. as servers (specifically as waiters, waitresses, bartenders, hosts, hostesses, and bussers) at any time from September 2018 to June 2021." In addition to conditionally certifying this proposed class, the Plaintiffs request the Court's assistance in notifying putative Opt-In Plaintiffs of their right to join this action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' unlawful, common policy and practice which results in servers not receiving all of their tips and not being paid the required minimum wage in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 206(a). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hJkKe7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian L. Connell, Esq. CHRISTIAN L. CONNELL, P.C. 555 East Main Street, Suite 1102 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 533-6500 Facsimile: (757) 299-4770 E-mail: christian.connell@outlook.com NT STOLEN: Class Action to Continue Despite Redress Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Smit at nit.com.au reports that the class action launched on behalf of Northern Territory Stolen Generation survivors will continue, despite the announcement of the Territories Redress Scheme. Aboriginal leader, Nyunggai Warren Mundine is the director of Litigation Lending Services (LLS) who are supporting the lawsuit. "We love it that that the government has come and made this redress, but for us it is not the full redress because it is only for people who are living now," Mundine said. "We believe that people have passed away, their family should also be part of the redress, so we will be looking at continuing our action until everyone who should be compensated and should be looked after [has been]." The class action is seeking compensation for members for the Stolen Generation in the Northern Territory for their removal from their families between 1910 and the 1970's. "I gotta say, I think I'm a big, hairy man who's very stoic, but when I was up in the Northern Territory and listening to the lawyers do the interviews [with victims], I was brought to tears . . . . the stories were horrific," he said. He said though the Redress Scheme is a step in the right direction, it doesn't cast a wide enough net. "We're feeling that it was a good gesture, and I'm really happy that those living people are gonna get money through this redress," he said "You've got to praise the government for this because even though it was probably 50-years a bit behind the eight ball - they got there. "But at the same time, it's not full justice for these people." The Redress Scheme offers a one-off $70 000 payment to living members of the Stolen Generation, along with the opportunity to tell their story in full and receive a personal apology from the Federal Government. Mundine said it's not just those still living that were affected by the forced removals, the families of survivors of the Stolen Generation who passed away before the Redress Scheme was introduced still deserve to be compensated for the ongoing impact of the intergenerational trauma. "It's about making sure that that everyone was there that was affected by this policy are all looked after," he said. "So we've got [compensation for] the living Stolen Generation people and that's great, but we need to look at the people who have passed away, and their families." He said that though no compensation will ever truly be enough, he will continue to fight for mob. "To me this is very personal; even though none of my family had been taken away. It is about the opportunities, the lives that these people could have had, that were denied by this policy," he said. "We say you can never really give true justice back to these people, but we're sure going to fight to see that they get the justice they deserve." Shine Lawyers are leading the class action, however are not able to comment at this time. [GN] NVIDIA CORPORATION: Tobias Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER, individually and on v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06081-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order granting with leave to amend motion to dismiss complaint. The Court said, "The Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiffs' complaint is granted with leave to amend. Should Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so within 30 days of this Order. Failure to do so, or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order and in Defendants' motion to dismiss, will result in dismissal of the Plaintiffs' deficient claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs may not add new claims or parties without a stipulation or leave of the Court. If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, Plaintiffs must also file a redlined version of the amended complaint identifying the amendments." Nvidia Corporation is an American multinational technology company incorporated in Delaware and based in Santa Clara, California. It designs graphics processing units for the gaming and professional markets, as well as system on a chip units for the mobile computing and automotive market. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Eq65OQ at no extra charge.[CC] NVR INC: Hughes Seeks Loan Processors' Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, JOEL HUGHES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NVR, INC. and NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01018 (E.D. Va., September 3, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a loan processor from approximately May 2019 to August 2020 in Greenville, South Carolina. The Plaintiff claims that they were required by the Defendants to work overtime, but did not compensate them for all hours worked. The Defendants purportedly instructed them to record only 40 hours per week on their timesheets, even when they worked more. Although the Defendants' management team pre-approved recording overtime hours worked, the number o overtime hours approved was often inadequate to cover all the overtime hours that the Defendants required them to work, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff brings this collective action complaint to recover unpaid overtime compensation against the Defendants. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other injunctive and equitable relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. NVR. Inc. operates in two business segments: homebuilding and mortgage banking. NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. operates branches in the metropolitan areas in which NVR has homebuilding operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia St., Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlerwood.com zev@butlerwood.com craig@butlerwood.com - and – Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 981 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - and – Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th St., Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.com kkienzle@nka.com OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Deselms Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anita C. Deselms, as Trustee of the Anita C. Deselms Living Trust, et al., v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC; Anadarko Oil & Gas, LLC; Anadarko Land Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-00243-NDF (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the following class: "All Owners of Class Minerals during the Class Period but excluding any Owner who, during the Class Period, (i) was a lessee of Class Minerals or (ii) had a Working Interest in any of the Class Minerals other than those costs that might be imposed under the provisions of Wyo. Stat. §30-5- 109 as it existed at the beginning of the Impacted Period or as later amended;" 2. designating Anita C. Deselms, John C. Eklund, Jr., Justin W. and Brandi J. Miller, Ron Rabou, and Russell I. Williams, Jr. as the representatives of the Class; and 3. appointing Robert P. Schuster of Robert P. Schuster, P.C. as lead counsel for the Class. The Plaintiffs include Rabou Resources, LLC through its manager, Ron Rabou; Gross-Wilkinson Ranch, LLC; J. Dennis A. Black and Karen Black, husband and wife; Michael Powers, as Trustee of the J. Michael Powers Revocable Trust UA Dated August 10, 1982; John G. Williams and Theresa M. Williams, husband and wife; John Gilbert Williams and Theresa M. Williams, as Trustees of the John & Theresa Williams Trust dated July 18, 2019; Russell I. Williams, Jr., as Trustee of the Russell I. Williams, Jr. Revocable Trust U/A dated 7/27/83; Phillip (Brock) Carl Williams, as Trustee of the Williams Family Trust U/A dated 7/21/14; Jolene M. Simkins; Norma Jean Smith, individually and as Trustee of the Smith Family Revocable Trust Dated May 1, 2018; Richard Bagby and Tracy Bagby, husband and wife; Benjaman D. Adkison and Kelli J. Adkison, husband and wife; Phyllis A. Cooney, as Trustee of the Phyllis A. Cooney Trust U/A dated September 22, 1995; John C. Eklund, Jr, as Trustee of the John C. Eklund Revocable Trust UA April 25, 2011; Suzanne Lee Eklund, as Trustee of the Suzanne Lee Eklund Revocable Trust UA April 25, 2011; Justin W. Miller and Brandi J. Miller, husband and wife; Val D. Eklund and Sharron R. Eklund, husband and wife; Mina Bayne; Karen Leslie Bryant, individually and as Trustee of the Karen Bryant Living Trust dated September 22, 2017; John K. Marquardt, as Trustee of the John K. Marquardt Revocable Trust U/A dated 5/1/08; Gust of Wind, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; Party Vikings LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; J&L Lerwick Limited Partnership; and Julie Jayne Goyen. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VODq4s at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Schuster, Esq. Bradley L. Booke, Esq. ROBERT P. SCHUSTER P.C. P.O. Box 13160 250 Veronica Lane, Suite 204 Jackson, WY 83002 Telephone: 307.732.7800 E-mail: bob@bobschuster.com brad@bobschuster.com - and - Samuel Issacharoff, Esq. 40 Washington Square South New York, NY 10012 Telephone: 212.998.6580 E-mail: si13@nyu.com - and - J.N. Murdock, Esq. MURDOCK LAW FIRM, LLC 104 South Wolcott Street, Suite 800 Casper, WY 82601 Telephone: (307) 235-0480 E-mail: jnmurdock@murdocklawfirm.com - and - Laurence O. Masson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LAURENCE O. MASSON 2625 Alcatraz Avenue, # 206 Berkeley, CA 94705-2702 Telephone: (510) 735-9691 E-mail: lomlex@gmail.com - and - Thomas N. Long, Esq. Kris C. Koski, Esq. Justin A. Daraie, Esq. LONG REIMER WINEGAR LLP P.O. Box 87 2120 Carey Ave., Suite 300 Cheyenne, WY 82003 Telephone: (307) 635-0710 Facsimile: 307.635.0413 E-mail: tlong@lrw-law.com kkoski@lrw-law.com jdaraie@lrw-law.com - and - Cody l. Balzer, Esq. BALZER LAW FIRM, P.C. 1302 Cleveland Avenue Loveland, Co 80537 Telephone: 970.203.1515 E-mail: cody@balzerlaw.com OMNICARE INC: Settlement Deal in Davis Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL DAVIS, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OMNICARE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00142-REW-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Wir entered an order 1. granting the parties joint bid for final certification of the Rule 23 class and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective, and final approval of the proposed settlement agreement; 2. approving the settlement agreement; 3. finally certifying the provisionally certified Kentucky class pursuant to Federal Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for purposes of settlement; 4. finally certifying the conditionally certified FLSA collective is now finally certified pursuantto 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for purposes of settlement; and 5. approving the attorney fees, costs and expenses, claims administration expenses, and service award provided for in the proposed agreement per the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the substantiating documentation; and 6. approving the cy pres beneficiary. The Court said, "Final certification is not contested. The Parties jointly stipulate for settlement purposes that Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated because "they had substantially similar job requirements, worked for Omnicare in Kentucky via the same courier company, Act Fast, and were all classified as independent contractors and required to perform work without overtime compensation and without being reimbursed for all work expenses. Moreover, they were all subject to the same (or similar) allegedly unlawful payroll deductions." For the motion stated reasons, and as discussed previously, the Plaintiffs here suffered from the same alleged FLSA-violating policies and are therefore similarly situated, thus warranting final certification at step two. See Davis, 2021 WL 1214501 (discussing fact that members suffer from the same alleged FLSA-violating policies of non-payment of overtime compensation, non-payment of qualifying reimbursements, and payroll deductions). Accordingly, final certification of the proposed collective is granted. The proposed settlement also meets the requirements set by the Class Action Fairness Act." Davis initiated this putative collective and class action against Defendant Omnicare, Inc. and three of its subsidiary pharmacies. Davis sues on behalf of himself and others that performed delivery or dispatch services for Defendants. Omnicare is an American company working in the health care industry. It was established in April 1981 as a spinoff of healthcare businesses from Chemed and W. R. Grace and Company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zmp0Gu at no extra charge.[CC] OREGON MUTUAL: Dakota Ventures Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Dakota Ventures, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled DAKOTA VENTURES, LLC, d/b/a KOKOPELLI GRILL and COYOTE BBQ PUB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00630-HZ, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 26, 2021, Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Dakota Ventures filed this class action for breach of contract and declaratory relief against Defendant Oregon Mutual alleging that Defendant breached its insurance contract with Plaintiff when it denied coverage for losses stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff operates two restaurants in Port Angeles, Washington. It opened Kokopelli Grill in 2009 and opened Coyote BBQ Pub in 2015. The Plaintiff purchased a "Business Owner's Protector Policy" for both businesses from the Defendant. The Policy covers "direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property" and "direct physical loss of or damage to property" caused by "risks of direct physical loss." In late February 2020, Washington Governor Inslee declared a State of Emergency statewide. In March 2020, Governor Inslee issued an executive order that prohibited people from gathering in any public venue for the purpose of consuming food and beverages. As a result, the Plaintiff suspended indoor dining services and reduced its operations at both restaurants. The Plaintiff submitted an insurance claim to the Defendant to recover its financial losses caused by the Governor's orders and the resulting reduced business operations. The same day, the Defendant denied coverage because it found that no covered cause of loss had occurred that triggered coverage under the Policy's provisions. The lawsuit followed. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the case dismissal order entered by Judge Hernandez. The appellate case is captioned as Dakota Ventures, LLC v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 21-35758, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Sep. 9, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Dakota Ventures, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due Sep. 16, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by Oct. 8, 2021; -- Transcript is due on Nov. 8, 2021; -- Appellant Dakota Ventures, LLC opening brief is due on Dec. 17, 2021; -- Appellee Oregon Mutual Insurance Company answering brief is due on Jan. 18, 2022; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAKOTA VENTURES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA Coyote BBQ Pub, DBA Kokopelli Grill, is represented by: Freya Kirsten Bowen, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Timothy Burns, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR, LLP 10 E Doty Street, Suite 600 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2037 - and - Douglas A. Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 - and - Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Parkway N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 - and - Steve Douglas Larson, Esq. Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER, P.C. 209 S.W. Oak Street Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com Defendant-Appellee OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Jay William Beattie, Esq. LINDSAY HART NEIL & WEIGLER, LLP 1300 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 226-7677 E-mail: jbeattie@lindsayhart.com - and - Jennifer Page Dinning, Esq. SOHA & LANG, PS 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-1800 E-mail: dinning@sohalang.com - and - Clarke Benbow Holland, Esq. PACIFIC LAW PARTNERS, LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 950 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (510) 841-7777 E-mail: cholland@plawp.com OWN USA: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against OWN USA Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. OWN USA Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07692 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[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 PARADIES SHOPS: Data Breach Caused Huge Damages, Lawsuit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bradley-Smith at databreaches.net reports that Airport store operator, Paradies Shops LLC, which runs more than 850 retail and 170 restaurant locations in more than 100 airports across the United States, was negligent with employee data and caused huge damages to more than 76,000 employees after a 2020 data breach, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Ramirez, and more than 76,000 other airport store employees, had their personal information stolen in an October 2020 data breach and reports of the breach were known from as early as the next day. However, the class action lawsuit says that it took more than eight months for The Paradies Shops to begin notifying affected staff of the breach. According to the class action, the airport store operator had not publicly reported when it first learned of the breach, and it took until July 2021 for it to begin notifying various states Attorneys General. [GN] PFIZER INC: Nov. 1 EpiPen Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you or someone you love carry an EPIPEN? If you've purchased an EpiPen sometime between August 24, 2011 and November 1, 2020, you can SUBMIT A CLAIM to be part of a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the group of defendants (a group of medical companies including Pfizer), collaborated to keep the EpiPen monopoly WHILE RAISING PRICEs from $100 to $600 in the span of less than 10 years. If you purchased a brand-name or generic EpiPen, you can SUBMIT A CLAIM at https://www.epipenclassaction.com/Home/ClaimForms Your CLAIM must be postmarked or submitted online by November 12, 2021. You don't have to know the exact amount of EpiPen's you purchased, so just make your best guess. You may, however, have to show proof after the settlement is reached. [GN] PIPES & SHAW: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pipes & Shaw, LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Pipes & Shaw, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-07694 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pipes and Shaw LLC doing business as Veronica Beard -- https://veronicabeard.com/ -- features the latest trends in women's designer clothing blending cool, classic & chic styles.[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 POLARIS INC: Averts Class Action Over Vehicles' Design Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Heilman, writing for Minnesota Lawyer, reports that Medina-based Polaris Inc. has prevailed in a class-action lawsuit claiming that a design flaw in its off-road vehicles shortens the vehicles' lives and endangers owners. [GN] PRIME COAST: Thompson Sues Over Vending Machines' Hidden Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME COAST VENDING, LLC, and CANTALOUPE, INC., Defendants, Case No. CACE-21-016888 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 7, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for unlawfully charging consumers, including Plaintiff, who use debit or credit card to purchase items from Defendant's vending machines. According to the complaint, Cantaloupe partners with vending machine operator Prime Coast to install payment portals that permit consumers to use credit and debit cards to pay for vending machine purchases. Contrary to the clear pricing featured on Prime Coast's vending machines, and the thousands of other vending machines using Cantaloupe's payment processing, consumers who made purchases at these vending machines were allegedly charge a hidden and undisclosed fee if they used a credit or debit card. Cantaloupe Inc. is one of the largest providers of payment processing services for vending machines in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 - and - Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Reconsideration of Class Cert. Bid Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHTERNA PINCHASOV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-24897-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to reconsider her motion for class certification and enter a ruling on the merits of the same. The Plaintiff says that should the court be inclined to deny her motion for reconsideration, she would be allowed to leave to amend her Reply to address the improper choice of law argument raised in Defendant's footnote, or otherwise meet her burden regarding same. On September 10, 2021, this Court entered a four-page order, acknowledging withdrawal of Plaintiff's negligence count, and denying Plaintiff's request for class certification for the remaining intentional tort count of breach of fiduciary duty. The basis for the Court's denial was unambiguous -- a perceived failure by Plaintiff to address Defendant's argument that California law and not Florida law governed the Plaintiff's tort claim at issue. However, the Defendant's argument invoked by the Order as the sole factor necessitating class certification be denied, was Defendant's perfunctory and conclusory insertion of a choice of law contention raised in the second footnote embedded within Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Courts do not consider argument merely raised in a footnote, as it was raised here by the Defendant in its Response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Robinhood Financial operates as an institutional brokerage company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zflPQR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Citron, Esq. MAC LEGAL, P.A. 4601 Sheridan Street, Suite 205 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 395-2954 E-mail: Michael@maclegalpa.com Service@maclegalpa.com - and - Igor Hernandez, Esq. CORNISH HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, PLLC 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 780-6058 E-mail: service@CHGLawyers.com ihernandez@chglawyers.com - and - Ely R. Levy, Esq. Venessa Valdes Solis, Esq. LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC 3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1 Hollywood, Fl 33021 Telephone: (954) 727-8570 E-mail: elevy@lawlp.com venessa@lawlp.com Maritza@lawlp.com The Defendant is represented by: Grace Mead, Esq. Ryan Thornton, Esq. STEARNS WEAVER MILLER Museum Tower 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-789-3559 E-mail: gmead@stearnsweaver.com rthornton@stearnsweaver.com - and - Maeve O'Connor, Esq. Elliot Greenfield, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com egreenfield@debevoise.com SAFECO INSURANCE: 7th Cir. Adopts Objective Reasonableness Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Parker, Esq., of Reed Smith, disclosed that on August 12, 2021, the Seventh Circuit joined the Third, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits in holding that the "objective reasonableness" standard for determinations of scienter, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70 (2007), applies in the context of False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit observed that, under Safeco, a defendant cannot possess the requisite scienter under the FCA if: (1) it has an objectively reasonable reading of the statute or regulation; and (2) there was no authoritative guidance warning against its view. This case has significant implications for defendants in FCA litigation by finding that an objectively reasonable interpretation of the law will defeat allegations of false claims. Further, the decision is the latest victory in a spate of cases brought by the plaintiffs' bar claiming that pharmacies are required to report special prices -- such as membership club prices or matched competitor prices -- as their usual and customary (U&C) prices. Virtually every pharmacy that has operated a membership club has faced scrutiny through actions under the FCA and consumer-class actions. The Seventh Circuit's decision comes in the wake of the recent jury verdict in favor of CVS in the matter of Carl Washington (formerly known as Corcoran) et al. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 15-cv-03504 (N.D. Ca. Jun. 24, 2021). This victory will support pharmacies' defenses in other similar litigation alleging the submission of false U&C prices, particularly when the alleged false conduct occurred before 2016, given that the Seventh Circuit found that reporting retail prices -- as opposed to special prices such as price matches -- was an objectively reasonable approach to U&C reporting. The Lower Court's Decision: In U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SUPERVALU, No. 11-cv-3290 (7th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021), two whistleblowers filed suit under the FCA in 2011, alleging that pharmacies operated by the grocery chains SUPERVALU and Albertsons knowingly caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs because they submitted their retail cash prices, not customer-initiated matches of their competitors' prices, as their U&C prices. The government declined to intervene in the case. Following the close of discovery, the district court initially entered partial summary judgment in favor of the whistleblowers on the sole issue of the FCA's falsity element in accordance with the Seventh Circuit's 2016 decision in U.S. ex rel. Garbe v. Kmart Corp., 824 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2016), which had held that Kmart submitted false claims when it did not pass on its discount-program prices -- that were held to be widely available -- to the government. After this decision limited to falsity, the district court then entered complete summary judgment in favor of the pharmacies, applying Safeco. The district court concluded that SUPERVALU and Albertsons could not have acted "knowingly" under the FCA because their understanding that U&C definitions did not require the pharmacies to submit lower, price-match prices as U&C, was objectively reasonable. The Seventh Circuit's Decision: On appeal, in a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit joined all other circuits that have reviewed this issue by applying the Supreme Court's decision in Safeco to the FCA. In finding for the pharmacies, the Court first concluded that the meaning of U&C, as set forth in the relevant statutes and regulations, was ambiguous. The Court then noted that SUPERVALU and Albertsons' interpretation of Medicaid laws that defined U&C to refer to its retail cash prices, as opposed to its price-match prices that it did not necessarily charge all or most of its customers, was objectively reasonable. The Court rejected the Relators' contention that the only objectively reasonable interpretation of U&C was to include special prices, such as club prices or price matches, and found that an incorrect interpretation does not render an interpretation unreasonable. The Court further cautioned that its prior decision in Garbe did not address the FCA's scienter prong and that the Court did not say that the only way to define U&C was the way the Court defined it in Garbe. In addition, the Court observed that it is irrelevant whether a defendant believed that it was violating its U&C reporting requirements, as the FCA establishes liability for knowingly false claims and, thus, a defendant's subjective intent is insufficient for purposes of establishing liability. Finally, the Court concluded that there was no authoritative guidance that should have warned SUPERVALU and Albertsons away from their interpretation of U&C, noting that there was no circuit court precedent or guidance from a relevant agency prior to Garbe. Notably, the Court specifically rejected the application of a 2006 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual, which neither addressed price matches nor customer-initiated prices. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's holding, concluding that SUPERVALU and Albertsons' understanding of the definition of U&C was objectively reasonable, and there was no authoritative guidance that placed the pharmacies on notice that their interpretation was erroneous. This decision -- which represents the most recent in a series of Circuit Court rulings adopting the Safeco standard in the context of FCA litigation -- is a welcome outcome for FCA defendants. Case to Watch: The Seventh Circuit will also review the same lower court's adoption of the Safeco "objective reasonableness" standard with respect to Safeway's pharmacy programs, resulting in summary judgment in favor of Safeway. See U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., 466 F. Supp. 3d 912 (C.D. Ill. 2020). Immediately following its decision in Schutte, the Seventh Circuit invited the parties in the Proctor case to brief Schutte's impact on the appeal. Oral argument is scheduled to take place on September 9. Reed Smith will continue to track the progress of this and any related litigation. Please reach out to the health care attorneys at Reed Smith if you have any questions about this precedent or any other False Claims Act related inquiries. [GN] SAUDI ARABIA: Class Action Over 9/11 Terrorist Attacks Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Ravlic, writing for The Mandarin, reports that the US government must declassify documents that offer an explanation as to what, if any, involvement the government of Saudi Arabia may have had in the planning of the September 11 attacks, insists former FBI agent Ali Soufan. Soufan, who js the founder of the Soufan Center, was involved in investigating a series of high-profile cases resulting from terrorist activity including the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and the multiple attacks that felled the twin towers on September 11 two decades ago. Mystery still surrounds the links that certain hijackers may have had with representatives of the Saudi Arabian government, and Soufan argues that transparency is critical so that those victims and analysts searching for answers get closure. "In a class action lawsuit currently pending against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, survivors of 9/11 and the families of many of those who were murdered that day allege that some of those who helped Hazmi and Midhar were, in fact, active agents of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, acting under orders from Riyadh," Soufan said. "An investigation by ProPublica and the New York Times found indirect evidence of such a connection. We must take these allegations seriously, not least because they are backed by sworn affidavits from former FBI agents who have investigated the matter. "The best way to deal with the matter, of course, would be for the U.S. government to declassify documents relating to these contacts and allow the public to see for themselves." Soufan has written in a special edition of the Soufan Center's Issue Brief that al Qaeda's strategy is to use conflict and chaos, and that governments across the world should use all of the levers of government to minimise the growth of groups such as al Qaeda. He said that governments could use developmental assistance, cultural and educational assistance, and diplomatic and policy tools to "address the condition in which terrorism thrives and terrorists find their recruits". "The United States should not diminish attention to counterterrorism and Afghanistan to pursue 'great power competition'," Soufan said. "The two are not mutually exclusive and state and non-state adversaries are likely to benefit from American inattention." Intelligence about the activities of terrorist groups gathered from the frontlines in various countries such as Afghanistan is critical and Soufan said that governments and international organisations need to improve the capacities of people working at borders, travel and financial institutions to be able to identify the activity of terror networks. [GN] SCIPLAY CORP: November 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE SCIPLAY CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Index No. 655984/2019 (Masley, J., Commercial Division Part 48) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Class A common stock of SciPlay Corporation ("SciPlay" or the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement for SciPlay's May 3, 2019 initial public offering of Class A common stock, and were allegedly damaged thereby. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, that Lead Plaintiffs Police Retirement System of St. Louis and Hongwei Li, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class,1 and SciPlay and the other defendants in the Action, have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $8,275,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement"). This Action is a securities class action brought on behalf of those Persons who purchased or acquired SciPlay Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement for SciPlay's May 3, 2019 initial public offering of Class A common stock. Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement contained misleading statements and omissions. Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, all of Lead Plaintiffs' allegations, and deny that the Registration Statement was in any way materially false or misleading. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Andrea Masley, on November 15, 2021 at 3:30 p.m. EDT, before the Court, either in person at the Supreme Court, New York County, Courtroom 242, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, or remotely using directions that will be posted in advance on the Settlement website, in the Court's discretion (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 27, 2021; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Settlement, www.SciPlaySecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: SciPlay Corporation Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173062 Milwaukee, WI 53217 866-905-8128 info@SciPlaySecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Alfred L. Fatale III Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com 888-219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than December 23, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by the Settlement and all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than October 25, 2021. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely and validly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will remain in the Settlement Class and that means that, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, you will release all Plaintiffs' Released Claims against the Defendant Releasees. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the Judgment, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be mailed to the Court and counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than October 25, 2021. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: September 8, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY 1 All terms not defined herein shall have the definition assigned to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 27, 2021. [GN] SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Hartel Putative Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ SelectQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled, Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06903. On August 17, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint, captioned Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06903, asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021 (the "Relevant Period"). Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Relevant Period. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. SelectQuote said, "Accordingly, we currently believe that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on any of our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. However, depending on how this matter progresses, it could be costly to defend and could divert the attention of management and other resources from operations. The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has it accrued a liability related to this matter." SelectQuote, Inc. is a leading technology-enabled, direct-to-consumer (DTC) distribution platform that provides consumers with a transparent and convenient venue to shop for complex senior health, life, and auto & home insurance policies from a curated panel of the nation’s leading insurance carriers. The company is based in Overland Park, Kansas. SESEN BIO: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Sesen Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: SESN) investors with losses in excess of $250,000 to submit your losses now. Class Period: Dec. 21, 2020 - Aug. 17, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 18, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SESN Contact An Attorney Now: SESN@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Sesen Bio, Inc. (SESN) Securities Fraud Class Action: The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented clinical trial data for Sesen's lead product candidate Vicineum for the treatment of certain non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Specifically, Defendants concealed that: (1) the company's clinical trial for Vicineum had more than 2,000 protocol violations, including 215 classified as "major," (2) three of the company's clinical investigators were found guilty of "serious noncompliance," including backdating data, (3) the company submitted tainted data for Vicineum to the FDA, (4) the company's clinical trials showed that Vicineum leaked out into the body and caused serious side effects and increased risks for fatal liver injury. The truth began to emerge on Aug. 13, 2021, when Sesen announced the FDA did not approve the BLA in its present form and sought additional clinical/statistical data. Then, on Aug. 16, 2021, the company revealed it needed to conduct an additional clinical trial to provide the FDA with additional efficacy and safety data. Finally, on Aug. 18, 2021, STAT published an article entitled "Sesen Bio trial of cancer drug marked by misconduct and worrisome side effects, documents show." STAT cited hundreds of pages of internal documents and three people familiar with the matter reported the Vicineum clinical trial "was marked by thousands of violations of study rules, damning investigator conduct, and worrying signs of toxicity the company did not publicly disclose." These events sent the price of Sesen shares sharply lower. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Sesen lied to them about the prospects for Vicineum," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Sesen 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 Sesen 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 SESN@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] SESEN BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 18 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 12 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=19507&wire=1 SESN Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sesen-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1 HYRE Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&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=19507&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. Sesen Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:SESN) SESN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 21, 2020 - August 17, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sesen-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sesen Bio, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sesen Bio's clinical trial for its cancer treatment product, Vicineum, had more than 2,000 violations of trial protocol, including 215 classified as "major"; (2) three of Sesen Bio's clinical investigators were found guilty of "serious noncompliance," including "back-dating data"; (3) Sesen Bio had submitted the tainted data in connection with the Biologics License Application ("BLA") for Vicineum; (4) Sesen Bio's clinical trials showed that Vicineum leaked out into the body, leading to side effects including liver failure and liver toxicity, and increasing the risks for fatal, drug-induced liver injury; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's BLA for Vicineum was not likely to be approved; (6) as a result of the foregoing, there was a reasonable likelihood that Sesen Bio would be required to conduct additional trials to support the efficacy and safety of Vicineum; and (7) 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. HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ:HYRE) HYRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 14, 2021 - August 10, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hyrecar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19507&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HyreCar Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) HyreCar had materially understated its insurance reserves; (b) HyreCar had systematically failed to pay valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class Period; (c) HyreCar had incurred significant expenses transitioning to its new third-party insurance claims administrator and processing claims incurred from prior periods; (d) HyreCar had failed to appropriately price risk in its insurance products and was experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (e) HyreCar had been forced to dramatically reform its claims underwriting, policies and procedures in response to unacceptably high claims severity and customer complaints; and (f) as a result, HyreCar's operations and prospects were misrepresented because the Company was not on track to meet the financial estimates provided to investors during the Class Period, and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar's purported gross margin, EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), and net loss trajectories. 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] SLINGSHOT TECHNOLOGIES: Gardner Sues Over CSRs' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDIE GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SLINGSHOT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00531-JCB (D. Utah, Sept. 7, 2021) is a class and collective action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and/or former Customer Service Representative employees of Defendant over Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Utah Payment of Wages Act and alleged contractual obligations (or unjust enrichment if no contract is found), and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. The complaint alleges that the Defendant subjected Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate at-home call center employees for their necessary pre-shift time, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as required under applicable federal and state laws. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Customer Service Representative and Collections Agent from April 2019 to August 2020. Slingshot Technologies, Inc. provides customer service support to leading home services brands, for things like pest control, lawn care, and plumbing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nancy A. Mismash, Esq. ROBERT J. DEBRY & ASSOCIATES 4252 South 700 East Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Telephone: (801) 262-8915 Facsimile: (801) 262-8995 E-mail: nmismash@robertdebry.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com SONIC CORP: Judge Denies Bid for Early Judgment in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria McKenzie, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge has denied fast-food chain Sonic's bid for an early judgment in a class action over a massive data breach in which hackers gained access to cash registers at 762 franchise restaurants. [GN] SPECTRUM PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming November 1, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SPPI) securities between December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Spectrum 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/spectrum-pharmaceuticals-inc-1/. 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 December 2018, Spectrum submitted a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for ROLONTIS as a treatment for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. On August 6, 2021, Spectrum announced that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the BLA, citing deficiencies related to manufacturing and requiring a reinspection of the Company's manufacturing facility. On this news, Spectrum's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or nearly 22%, to close at $2.55 per share on August 6, 2021. The complaint filed 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 ROLONTIS manufacturing facility maintained deficient controls and/or procedures; (2) the foregoing deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the FDA would approve the ROLONTIS BLA in its current form; (3) Spectrum had therefore materially overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval prospects; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 1, 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] SPECTRUM PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Novemeber 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc ("Spectrum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SPPI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and docketed under 21-cv-01612, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities between December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities during the Class Period, you have until November 1, 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. Spectrum is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes oncology and hematology drug products. The Company's products under development include, among others, ROLONTIS (eflapegrastim), a novel long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In December 2018, Spectrum submitted a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for ROLONTIS as a treatment for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (the "ROLONTIS BLA"). 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) the ROLONTIS manufacturing facility maintained deficient controls and/or procedures; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the FDA would approve the ROLONTIS BLA in its current form; (iii) Spectrum had therefore materially overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 6, 2021, Spectrum announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the ROLONTIS BLA. The CRL cited deficiencies related to manufacturing and indicated that a reinspection of the Company's manufacturing facility will be necessary. On this news, Spectrum's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or 21.54%, to close at $2.55 per share on August 6, 2021. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] ST. LOUIS, MO: Filing of Class Status Response Extended ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody, et al., v. City of St. Louis, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707 (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G Fleissig entered an order granting consent motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify class by Defendant City of St. Louis. The nature of suit states civil rights. St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River.[CC] STATE FARM: Baker Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status Denial -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RASHAD BAKER, RACHAEL LEONARD, and ZELMA STOVALL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00014-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its Order denying class certification. The Plaintiffs contend that reconsideration is warranted because the Court misunderstood the claim they were seeking to certify, and such misunderstanding, coupled with the Court's misimpression that Richard Hixenbaugh's expert opinions were based on a small "sample," as opposed to his substantial experience and knowledge appraising the diminished value ("DV") of thousands of varied vehicles, led to the mistaken conclusion that the Rule 23 elements of commonality and predominance were lacking. State Farm Insurance is a group of insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ltz6jS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerry A. Buchanan, Esq. BUCHANAN LAW FIRM, PC Post Office Box 2848 Columbus, GA 31902 Telephone: (706) 323-2848 E-mail: jab@thebuchananlawfirm.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Matt@WebbLLC.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas W. Curvin, Esq. Valerie S. Sanders, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP E-mail: tomcurvin@eversheds-sutherland.com valeriesanders@eversheds-sutherland.com STUDENT LOAN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------- Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Student Loan Defense Center LLC faces a proposed class action over its alleged practice of placing automated telemarketing calls to consumers who never consented to receive them. According to the case, the Student Loan Defense Center's use of an artificial or prerecorded voice to market and advertise its business through unsolicited telemarketing calls is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of such technology to place non-emergency telemarketing calls without a recipient's prior express consent to do so. The plaintiff, a Montgomery County, Maryland resident, claims the Student Loan Defense Center, who purports to help consumers reduce or eliminate student loan debt, called him on at least two occasions in June 2021 and left voicemails that contained the following prerecorded message: "Hi this is Thomas from Student Loan Defense Center it looks like we have on record that your federal student loan maybe eligible to be reduced or even eliminated. So, give us a call us at 702-854-1378." Per the complaint, the plaintiff was able to tell that the calls utilized an artificial or prerecorded voice "because the caller was robotic and because of the distinctive nature of the sound, pauses, and the wording of the recordings were always the same." The plaintiff claims to have never provided the defendant with his cell phone number or his permission to place the unsolicited calls. According to the case, the man never signed up for Student Loan Defense Center's services or "had any form of business relationship" with the company. Moreover, the plaintiff's cell phone number has allegedly been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since November 2006, meaning the defendant was prohibited from calling his number without his express written consent, according to the suit. The lawsuit claims that aside from experiencing privacy violations, the plaintiff has become "understandably aggravated" with the defendant's calls, which have allegedly forced him to redirect his attention from work and other activities and spend time investigating the source of the messages. [GN] STURDY MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack ---------------------------------------------------------- Jill McKeon, writing for HealthIT Security, reports that Massachusetts-based Sturdy Memorial Hospital is facing a class action lawsuit after a ransomware attack in February that impacted over 35,000 individuals and put personally identifiable information (PII) in jeopardy. Local news outlet The Sun Chronicle reported that a class action lawsuit was filed in Plymouth Superior Court on August 26, claiming that the provider failed to safeguard its data against ransomware attacks. In addition to impacting Sturdy Memorial Hospital's data, the incident also impacted Harbor Medical Associates, South Shore Medical Center, and South Shore Physician Hospital Organization, all of which had partnered with Sturdy for care coordination. In Sturdy Memorial Hospital's official statement to patients on May 28, the provider admitted to paying a ransom in exchange for the safe return of patient data. "Through our investigation, we determined that an unauthorized party gained access to some of our systems during the morning of February 9, 2021," the statement explained. "Our systems were secured later that same day. In exchange for a ransom payment, we obtained assurances that the information acquired would not be further distributed and that it had been destroyed." The plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit that the ransomware payment did not guarantee that their information is actually secured. In addition, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) both strongly discourage entities from paying a ransom in response to a cyberattack. "Paying a ransom doesn't guarantee you or your organization will get any data back," the FBI's website asserts. "It also encourages perpetrators to target more victims and offers an incentive for others to get involved in this type of illegal activity." The stolen information included names, contact information, routing numbers, financial account numbers, Medicare claim numbers, medical history, and Social Security numbers. The hospital emphasized that its EHR system was not involved in the breach. The suit claims that the attack resulted in damages exceeding $50,000, and the primary plaintiff's attorneys requested a trial by jury. The hospital provided two free years of credit monitoring and encouraged individuals to review their financial statements regularly. However, the plaintiffs argued that two free years of credit monitoring is insufficient and does not properly compensate patients for the potential consequences of the ransomware attack, which could last for much longer than two years. Lawsuits, data recovery, and additional cybersecurity investments are just some of the ramifications of a healthcare ransomware attack. A recent report from IBM and Ponemon Institute estimated that healthcare data breaches cost on average $9.23 million per incident. CISA recently released a fact sheet that outlined steps organizations can take to protect PII and respond to a data breach. The fact sheet emphasized that organizations should never pay a ransom to cybercriminals and urged entities with sensitive data to ensure that they have encrypted offline data backups and an incident response plan. It is also crucial that organizations ensure that data is disposed of properly and report data breaches to state and federal agencies. [GN] SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-2978 (ZNQ) (LHG) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SYNCHRONOSS COMMON STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 28, 2014 AND JUNE 13, 2017, INCLUSIVE: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, a hearing will be held on December 8, 2021, at 12:00 pm., before the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, United States District Judge, at the Clarkson S. Fisher Building & United States Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, to determine: (1) whether a proposed Settlement of In re Synchronoss Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-2978 (D.N.J.) (the "Action") including the sum of Nineteen Million ($19,000,000.00) in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, which would result in this Action being dismissed with prejudice and will prevent Settlement Class Members from ever being part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants (and parties related to them) about the legal claims being resolved by this Settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 19, 2021; (2) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether Lead Plaintiff's Counsel should be awarded attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Action, together with interest thereon, and whether the Lead Plaintiff should receive an award of its costs and expenses in representing the Settlement Class. Those matters will be addressed by the Court at the Settlement Hearing to be held on December 8, 2021. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Synchronoss common stock (NASDAQ: SNCR) during the Class Period (October 28, 2014 through June 13, 2017, inclusive), your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies either by downloading this information at www.SynchronossSettlement.com or by writing to Synchronoss Securities Settlement c/o Epiq PO Box 5406, Portland, OR 97228-5406. If you are a Settlement Class Member, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim form by mail (postmarked no later than January 6, 2022), or online at www.SynchronossSettlement.com (submitted no later than January 6, 2022), establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to be excluded, in writing, such that it is postmarked no later than November 17, 2021, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than November 17, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any payment from the Settlement, and you cannot object to the Settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in the lawsuit, and you may be able to sue the Defendants and Related Parties about the Settlement Class's Released Claims in the future. If you want to bring your own lawsuit based on the matters alleged in this Action, you may want to consult an attorney and discuss whether any individual claim that you may wish to pursue would be time-barred. Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's fee and expense application must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, such that they are received no later than November 17, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim form should be made to the Claims Administrator: Synchronoss Securities Settlement c/o Epiq PO Box 5406 Portland, OR 97728-5406 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim form, may be made to Lead Counsel: GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. Daniel L. Berger 485 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 Tel: (646) 722-8500 Fax: (646) 722-8501 Email: dberger@gelaw.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [GN] T-MOBILE US: Asks the Court to Consolidate Data Breach Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ mobileworldlive.com reports that T-Mobile US asked the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate 29 class action lawsuits made against the company following a data breach, proposing all claims be heard as one suit by a solitary court. In a filing, T-Mobile noted the request does not remove its right to seek arbitration over the matters. The panel is a section of the broader US judiciary which determines if suits filed in different courts can be consolidated. T-Mobile disclosed a network security breach in August which affected 48 million current, former and prospective customers. One plaintiff filed a separate motion also seeking to consolidate the cases, but in a different court to the one proposed by T-Mobile. The operator argued the plaintiff's selection "is not well suited" to hear the matter due to a shortage of judges. T-Mobile also noted the location of hearings is less important due to Covid-19 (coronavirus) restrictions, with courts tending to hear cases online. [GN] T-MOBILE USA: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case 3:21-cv-16696-ZNQ-DEA (D.N.J., Sept. 9, 2021) is a class action on behalf of the over 53 million individuals whose sensitive personal identifying information was compromised in a cybersecurity breach of T-Mobile, which was announced on or about August 16, 2021 (the "T-Mobile Breach"). According to the complaint, the compromised information includes names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, phone numbers, and two types of identification numbers associated with mobile phones–IMEI and IMSI numbers. T-Mobile allegedly failed to adequately protect consumers' sensitive personal identifying information. Lack of proper safeguards provided a means for unauthorized intruders to breach T-Mobile's computer network and steal sensitive personal identifying information. T-MOBILE USA, INC. operates as a telecommunications company. The Company specializes in radiotelephone services and communication, distribution of services, and cellular devices. [BN The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com -and- Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com -and- Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7756 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com TENNESSEE: 3rd Family Joins Class Action Over Mask Opt-Out Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- WREG reports that a third Shelby County family has joined a lawsuit against Gov. Bill Lee over his executive order that allows parents to opt their children out of school mask mandates. Court documents show that a 14-year-old Collierville girl and her mother have joined the list of complaints. The girl, who is vaccinated, reportedly suffers from an immunodeficiency that "leaves her unable to rely on the COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy." The suit claims that the opt-out executive violates the American With Disabilities Act and puts students with disabilities at risk. "Gov. Lee's Executive Order allowing parents to opt-out of the County's mask mandate has placed the parents of those with disabilities, which make them more susceptible to severe reaction to COVID-19 infection, in the impossible situation of having to choose between the health and life of their children and the basic, fundamental right of an education for their children," the suit states. A Shelby County judge has issued a temporary restraining order, meaning the governor cannot enforce the executive order in Shelby County. That restraining order is set to expire September 17. [GN] TENNESSEE: Judge Hears Governor's Mask Opt-Out Order in Schools --------------------------------------------------------------- Cathryn Stout, writing for Chalkbeat Tennessee, reports that schools can use creative scheduling to comply with the Tennessee governor's order that allows families to opt out of masks in schools and still protect the rights and health of immunocompromised students, argued attorney Jim Newsome during a court hearing on Sept. 9. Newsome, attorney for defendant Gov. Bill Lee, was among the parties presenting their cases in a Memphis courtroom before U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman of Tennessee's Western District. Lipman will now decide if a temporary injunction is appropriate to continue to block the governor's order, or if the court should reinstate it. The judge issued no ruling on Sept. 9, but a temporary restraining order issued Sept. 3 remains in effect until Sept. 17. The temporary injunction, if granted, would remain in effect while the trial is pending or until overturned in an appeals court. Three Shelby County parents of students with disabilities filed the class action lawsuit on Aug. 27. The suit says allowing students to circumvent a county masks-in-schools mandate violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because it jeopardizes the health and education of their medically vulnerable children who are at higher risks for severe complications from COVID. Parents in Florida have filed a similar lawsuit, and the Biden administration also is investigating related issues in Tennessee and other states. Newsome argued that the lawsuit was premature because the parents had not exhausted the appeals available through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Schools also should consider using gyms as classrooms to allow more social distancing or make special class schedules for students with disabilities to help limit their contact with their maskless peers, he said. Brice Timmons of Donati Law, who is representing the plaintiffs, scoffed at such ideas after court. "I thought that separate but equal was over but apparently we're going to argue that again for students with disabilities," he said. "That is completely antithetical to the central purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is to integrate persons with disabilities into the mainstream of American society," he said. Lawyers for Shelby County, who also filed a lawsuit against the governor over the executive order, supported the plaintiffs in court on Sept. 9. The only witness called on Sept. 9 was Theresa Nicholls, assistant commissioner for special populations at the Tennessee Department of Education. Nicholls, a defense witness and the head of special education services for the state, walked through the extensive accommodations that the state has made to help students with disabilities access a "free appropriate public education" since the beginning of the pandemic. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's lawyer asked if Lee consulted with her before issuing the order, given her expertise on disability services. "No," she replied. In the Sept. 9 hearing, attorneys and the judge also spoke to the effectiveness of masks, with the plaintiff's attorneys echoing the sentiments of a brief filed in the case by the state and national chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The statement said, "The AAP's strong recommendation of universal masking for students, teachers, and support staff in school has remained consistent from the beginning -- because masks are a safe, effective, and critical infection control measure." The statement also quoted one of Lee's statements on masking. "In short, the science squarely backs up Gov. Lee's advice that "If you want to protect your kid from the (COVID) virus or from quarantine, the best way to do that is to have your kid in school with a mask," it said. Lee, who is vaccinated and often wears a mask, has given mixed messages on masks for Tennessee schoolchildren. In interviews, news conferences, and social media posts, he has said both that masks are unnecessary in school and necessary for safety. However, Lee has remained steadfast that parents should make that choice for their children, not a county or school district. The issue of masks in schools has been hotly debated nationwide, but especially in the Republican stronghold of the South where some conservatives argue that masks are an intrusion on personal liberties. At the end of the Sept. 9 hearing, an anti-mask protester approached plaintiff attorney Bryce Ashby and called him a bad lawyer for his position in the case. After the hearing, Ashby's colleague addressed the outburst, political climate, and a threat made against one of his clients. He said he's worried about his clients' safety but added that he has already witnessed their toughness. "Parents of kids with disabilities are some of the strongest people I've ever met," he said. "They have to be tough. They have to constantly advocate for their children's needs. [GN] THERANOS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certif. in Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lieff Cabraser disclosed that on September 8, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed certification of the plaintiff class in the blood test fraud class action lawsuit brought by Lieff Cabraser against Theranos, Inc. and Walgreens over alleged misrepresentations the companies made about the efficacy and accuracy of Theranos' "Edison" blood tests and related unfair business practices. The Court also affirmed certification of the RICO claim against Walgreens for its participation in the Theranos Enterprise. (Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and her colleague Sunny Balawani, both defendants in the case, face separate criminal proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.) The opinion is notable for resurrecting the viability and force of dignitary torts, where the offense is in suffering certain kinds of shaming and forced loss of dignity. It will also allow the certified battery claim to proceed against Walgreens on behalf of consumers whose blood was drawn with Theranos technology that Plaintiffs allege Walgreens knew was unreliable for diagnostic purposes. First offered to consumers in 2013, Theranos and Walgreens advertised the Edison blood tests as being revolutionary -- allowing a wide range of vital tests to be accurately performed using a smaller needle and a smaller blood sample size than traditional blood testing devices. According to reports, more than 1 million consumers paid to have their blood tested by Theranos, submitting their blood samples at Theranos facilities and at dedicated Theranos stations set up at Walgreens pharmacy locations in Arizona and California. In May 2016, after media reports called into question the accuracy of the Edison tests and after federal regulators began investigating Theranos' testing facilities, Theranos voided all test results for blood tests performed at its Edison facility in 2014 and 2015, and revised the test results for thousands of other blood tests it had conducted. As alleged in the lawsuit, not only did consumers who paid for these blood tests not get what they paid for, but many consumers relied on what turned out to be inaccurate and unreliable test results in obtaining medical treatment that was unnecessary or in not pursuing treatment that was necessary. The Theranos Walgreens lawsuit seeks damages, including reimbursement of the amounts paid by consumers for the voided tests, as well as an injunction to prevent Theranos and Walgreens from engaging in further misrepresentations and unfair conduct. [GN] TIVITY HEALTH: Securities Class Action Pending in Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- National law firm Morris Kandinov is investigating the actions of the officers and board of directors of Tivity Health, Inc., DWS ESG Core Equity Fund, Gates Industrial Corporation plc, and Columbia Large Cap Index Fund. If you are a current owner of shares of any of these stocks, contact leo@moka.law or call (619) 708-3993. Tivity Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: TVTY) Accused of Misleading Investors On July 29, 2021, Judge Waverly Crenshaw, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued an order denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss in the pending securities class action against Tivity Health, Inc., paving the way for litigation to proceed. Tivity provides fitness and wellness programs geared toward senior citizens. According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Tivity's acquisition of Nutrisystem for $1.3 billion. On February 19, 2020, Tivity announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2019, disclosing that its "Nutrition segment had a disappointing end to 2019" including "a non-cash impairment charge of $377.1 million," that contributed to a $272.8 million net loss in the fourth quarter, due to complications in the nutrition business since its acquisition of Nutrisystem in March 2019. The company also announced that its Chief Executive Officer had resigned. In September of 2020, the company announced the resignation of co-founder Daniel G. Tully from its Board of Directors. Then, in October of 2020, it was reported that the company would be selling Nutrisystem for $575 million, less than half of what Tivity paid to buy it. Morris Kandinov is investigating Tivity regarding possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law, including securities claims on behalf of shareholders. To learn more about this investigation and your rights, visit: https://moka.law/case-contact-form/. Representation is contingency based, no out of pocket costs. DWS ESG Core Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MIDTX) Shareholder Rights Investigation Morris Kandinov is investigating DWS ESG Core Equity Fund regarding possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law, including securities claims on behalf of shareholders. To learn more about this investigation and your rights, visit: https://moka.law/case-contact-form/. Representation is contingency based, no out of pocket costs. Gates Industrial Corporation plc (NYSE: GTES) Shareholder Rights Investigation Morris Kandinov is investigating Gates Industrial Corporation plc regarding corporate governance failures, possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law, including securities claims on behalf of shareholders, related to recent transactions and/or events at the company. To learn more about this investigation and your rights, visit: https://moka.law/case-contact-form/. Representation is contingency based, no out of pocket costs. Columbia Large Cap Index Fund Class A (NASDAQ: NEIAX) Shareholder Rights Investigation Morris Kandinov is investigating Columbia Large Cap Index Fund regarding possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law, including securities claims on behalf of shareholders. To learn more about this investigation and your rights, visit: https://moka.law/case-contact-form/. Representation is contingency based, no out of pocket costs. Concerned shareholders are encouraged to contact Leo Kandinov to learn more: leo@moka.law (619) 708-3993 moka.law Morris Kandinov LLP is a national law firm that specializes in recovering investment losses and protecting stockholder rights. We work on contingency (i.e., you do not pay our fees out-of-pocket), and our attorneys have made substantial recoveries for investors in jurisdictions across the country. The firm would be happy to further discuss these matters, and any legal rights or remedies potentially available to you, at no charge. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Leo Kandinov, Partner leo@moka.law 619-708-3993 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 moka.law [GN] TOTAL LIFE: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to Oct. 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOTAL LIFE CHANGES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00095-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Brian K. Epps entered an order granting the parties' consent motion to extend the deadline time to file class certification. The Plaintiff shall have through and including October 11, 2021, to motion for class certification, says Judge Epps. Total Life offers health, wellness, and beauty products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nY41I7 at no extra charge.[CC] TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Class Claims in WM Bang Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WM BANG LLC AND JBANG LLC D/B/A BANG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 7:20-cv-04540-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss class claims. Because Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege any physical loss or damage to the Restaurant, the claim for breach of contract under the Business Income provision is dismissed, Judge Karas says. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Travelers Casualty Insurance for breach of contract claims and declaratory judgment under the Business Income and Civil Authority provisions of an insurance policy issued by Defendant for losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic and government orders issued in connection with it. The Plaintiffs own and operate a restaurant named Bang in a shopping mall in White Plains, New York which "was forced to significantly curtail its services due to Orders issued by the State of New York" "in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs purchased an "all risk" Businessowners Property Coverage policy from Defendant. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39bMnYr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Greg F. Coleman, Esq. Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Knoxville, TN Beverly Hills, CA - and - Shannon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC Philadelphia, PA The Defendant is represented by: Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP Hartford, CT TRUE PERFORMANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Neighbors Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN NEIGHBORS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE PERFORMANCE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC; and TP US HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00882-GBW-GJF (D.N.M., Sept. 8, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Neighbors was employed by the Defendants a driller. TRUE PERFORMANCE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC specializes in oil and gas well steering and drilling. Industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 -and- Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 TRULIEVE INC: Settles Hiring Class Action for Undisclosed Amount ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Jarvis, writing for Law360, reports that cannabis company Trulieve has reached a settlement with a class of employees and applicants who alleged they were fired or had employment offers pulled based on a consumer report, according to court filings that do not disclose the settlement amount. [GN] TTE TECHNOLOGY: Joint Stipulated Class Status Briefing OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK PACANA, PAUL FISKRATTI, and WAYNE LEWALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TTE TECHNOLOGY, INC., dba TCL NORTH AMERICA, Case No. 3:20-cv-02857-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order that: 1. the opposition and reply deadlines populated by the ECF system, and the October 14, 2021 hearing date on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, are stricken; 2. pursuant to the amended case management and pretrial order, Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall remain due on October 8, 2021, and Plaintiffs' reply in support of same shall remain due November 5, 2021; and 3. the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., or the next available date convenient for the Court. TTE designs and markets televisions. A copy of the Parties's motion dated Sept. 10, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tFOGg3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PPLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Suit PH Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: alex@milberg.com - and - Charles J Crueger, Esq. Ben Kaplan, Esq. (pro hac vice) CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC 4532 North Oakland Avenue Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 Telephone: (414) 210-3868 E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com bak@cruegerdickinson.com - and - MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Greg F. Coleman, Esq. Adam Edwards, Esq. First Horizon Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com aedwards@milberg.com - and - Luke P. Hudock, Esq. HUDOCK LAW GROUP, S.C. P.O. Box 83 Muskego, WI 53150 Telephone: (414) 526-4906 E-mail: lphudock@law-hlg.com The Defendant is represented by: Isabelle L. Ord, Esq. Elizabeth C. Callahan, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 836-2500 Facsimile: (415) 836-2501 E-mail: isabelle.ord@us.dlapiper.com elizabeth.callahan@us.dlapiper.com - and - Christopher M. Young, esq. Alexander E. Wolf, esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619).699-2700 Facsimile: (619) 699-2701 E-mail: christopher.young@us.dlapiper.com alexander.wolf@us.dlapiper.com TUTTO IL GIORNO: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Zhiminaicela Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO ZHIMINAICELA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUTTO IL GIORNO 3 LLC d/b/a TUTTO IL GIORNO, GIANPAOLO DE FELICE, individually, DAVID MAYER, individually, and GABBY KARAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04984-FB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or about January 2011 to in or about January 2021 to perform non-exempt duties for the Defendants including preparing food, cooking, and cleaning the premises. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record keeping of the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages paid to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay them spread-of-hours pay for each day in which they worked more than ten hours in a single day. Moreover, the Defendants failed to post required notices regarding payment of minimum wages and overtime compensation as required by the FLSA and NYLL, failed to provide them with accurate wage statement with every payment of wages as well as with written notice of their rate of pay and other information, the Plaintiff added. Tutto Il Giorno 3 LLC d/b/a TUTTO IL Giorno operates a restaurant, jointly owned by the Individual Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com TWIN CITY FIRE: Cosmetic Laser Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Cosmetic Laser, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled COSMETIC LASER, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00638, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises out of Twin City's refusal to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Ruling and Judgment dated Aug. 11, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is captioned as Cosmetic Laser, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 21-2160, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Sept. 9, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Cosmetic Laser, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kathleen L. Nastri, Esq. KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 E-mail: knastri@koskoff.com Defendant-Appellee Twin City Fire Insurance Company is represented by: Anthony Anscombe, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 577-1265 - and - Gerald Parker Dwyer, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8200 E-mail: gdwyer@rc.com TYSON FOODS: Settles Broiler Chicken Antitrust Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Schaltegger at thrillist.com reports that unless you're a vegetarian or just vehemently opposed to poultry, you've likely purchased a grocery store chicken in the last decade. Why does this matter, though? Well, a $181 million class-action lawsuit settlement was just reached with major chicken producers, and you might be eligible for a piece of it. Law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll reached that settlement with Fieldale, George's, Mar Jac, Peco, Pilgrim's, and Tyson as part of the Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation lawsuit that claimed price-fixing. And while, according to Food & Wine, a court will still have to approve the settlement later this year, you might be able to stake your claim on some cash. According to the outlet, anyone that's "purchased fresh or frozen raw chicken (defined as whole birds with or without giblets), whole cut-up birds purchased within a package, or 'white meat' parts including breasts and wings (or cuts containing a combination of these), but excluding chicken that is marketed as halal, kosher, free range, or organic)," is eligible. This applies to chicken from "any of the above brands or their alleged co-conspirators" between January 1, 2009 and July 31, 2019 or through December 31, 2020 for Pilgrim's. Here are the states included in the settlement: California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island (after July 15, 2013), South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. Now, how much money could you get? That we don't know. But you can start by checking your eligibility and filing a claim. Claims will be accepted through December 31, 2022.[GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: WeirFoulds Attorney Disccuses Class Cert. Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cassie Chaloux, Esq., of WeirFoulds LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that following the Supreme Court of Canada's highly anticipated decision in Uber Technologies Inc. v Heller, 2020 SCC 16, on August 12, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class action proceeding against Uber. The certification comes after an almost five-year battle that commenced in January 2017, in which Uber drivers attempted to become recognized as employees of Uber rather than independent contractors. The Uber Chronology I. The Lower Court Decisions In 2017, Mr. Heller, who worked as a food delivery driver and courier through Uber's app, brought a class proceeding against Uber for violations of Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c 41 [ESA]. Among the alleged violations were Uber's failure to provide the minimum wage and vacation pay as mandated under the ESA. The proceeding was successfully stayed by Uber in reliance on an arbitration clause in Uber's standard form services agreements that required a driver to participate in an arbitration process in the Netherlands. The lower court found that the clause ousted the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts to hear and resolve Mr. Heller's claim. The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Uber appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. II. The Supreme Court of Canada Decision The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's decision. The Supreme Court agreed that the Ontario courts could determine the enforceability of the arbitration clause, and ultimately found that the clause was unconscionable and could not be enforced. An important factor in the Supreme Court's decision to assume jurisdiction was that the extensive fees required to arbitrate in the Netherlands were a significant barrier to the plaintiff's ability to have the enforceability of the arbitration agreement determined. In finding the arbitration clause unconscionable, the Supreme Court emphasized the inequality of bargaining power inherent in the fact that the arbitration clause was part of an unnegotiated standard form contract. There was a significant difference between the sophistication of Uber and the individual workers, which resulted in individual workers failing to appreciate the financial and legal implications of the clause. Add a Stop - Certified at Last Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, the Ontario Superior Court gave the order for 'full speed ahead' when they certified the class proceeding in Heller v Uber Technologies Inc., 2021 ONSC 5518. Two key points of interest arise around (i) the unique problems of an employment law class action in the context of the "sharing economy", and (ii) the impact of the "Class Action Waiver" clause on determining the class. I. A New Kind of Class Action? Early in the decision, the Court noted that the proposed class action raised "unique problems of how class actions should adopt to what has been called the 'sharing economy', which is animated by information, computer, and Internet technology". In this case, certain Uber drivers felt differently than others about their employment status -- some wished to be classified as employees of Uber, while others viewed themselves as being self-employed -- resulting in questions around the commonality criteria (the certification requirement that there be common issues among the putative class members). These unique problems were apparent as early as the classification stage, where the Court classified the class action as a "compound classification of employment status class action" rather than a "conventional misclassification of employment" case. In a conventional misclassification class action, the issue is whether the class members are hired as employees, or dependent or independent contractors. In a compound classification of employment status class action, the threshold issue is whether, in a sharing economy, there is an employment relationship between the company and the class members. If an employment relationship is found to exist, the issue then becomes whether the class members are employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors. II.Class Action Waivers? After the Supreme Court of Canada found the arbitration clause in Uber's services agreement unenforceable, Uber updated the clause. The updated clause, referred to as the Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Clause (the "Clause"), had three significant changes from the earlier one. First, disputes would be handled through arbitration in the province or territory where the worker resided. Second, the individual could opt-out of the mandatory arbitration. Third, by agreeing to the Clause, the individual waived their right to participate in a class action proceeding. As a result of the Clause, the plaintiff class would have excluded every individual who accepted the arbitration clause. While the Court accepted that individuals were likely not given sufficient notice of the Clause, the Court refused to strike it down. The Court noted that the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 6 is a purely procedural statute, and that it would take a substantive decision not available on certification to strike down a contract term. Those who agreed to the Clause would not be excluded from the class, although they would need to be informed of the legal significance of the Clause so that they could determine whether they would like to opt-in or opt-out of the class. Key Takeaways The Uber class action reached the end of one long journey, only to begin another. While it is difficult to anticipate the outcome of the action at this time, the Uber chronology suggests that the courts are well-aware of the shifting employment landscape, and that they will undertake flexible analyses to address these changes when appropriate. This class action is certainly one to watch, as it may have far reaching implications for both workers and businesses who participate in Canada's ever-growing gig-economy. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. [GN] UNIQUE FREIGHT: Villamar Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILO VILLAMAR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. UNIQUE FREIGHT LINES, INC., A FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION, ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION CORP, A FOREIGN PROFIT CORPORATION, CARRIER COMPLIANCE SERVICES CORP, A FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION, UNIQUE FREIGHT BROKERS, INC. A FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION AND DAVID PADRON, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:21-cv-20573-DPG (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as follows: 1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action for unpaid overtime wages on behalf of current and former similarly situated Dispatcher/Customer Service Representatives of the Defendants or held similar job titles and worked for Defendants at any time in Florida from February 2018 through the resolution of this case; 2. directing the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's Order, provide a list, in electronic and importable format, of all persons employed by Defendants as Dispatcher/Customer Service Representatives or held similar job titles, from February 2018 to the present, containing the names, job titles, dates of employment, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers of such similarly situated current and former employees, so that Court-ordered notice may be implemented; 3. authorizing him to send Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 216(b), via U.S. Mail, electronically via email, and/or in a form approved by the Court, to all putative collective action members, that they may join this action and assert claims under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq.; 4. authorizing putative collective action members to electronically sign the Court authorized Consent to Join; and 5. authorizing putative class members 90 days to return their consent to join forms and opt into the case. Mr. Villamar, along with three additional Opt-In Plaintiffs who have come forward to participate in this case, prior to any notice being issued, are current and former hourly paid non-exempt employees of the Defendants who were not paid overtime compensation for any hours worked over 40 during any workweek; rather, they were just paid an hourly rate, up to 40 hours. Unique Freight provides courier, delivery services, customer service and compliance services to its customers. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XnDpW4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com UNITED KINGDOM: Class Action Mulled Over Quarantine Hotel Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reports that a law firm representing travellers is taking the government to court over the UK's quarantine hotel policy. Passengers must spend 11 nights in a quarantine hotel on returning from red list countries, even if fully vaccinated and testing negative for Covid. London-based firm PGMBM said it had called for a judicial review into the policy, but the government had refused. The cost of staying in a quarantine hotel is now GBP2,285. More than 60 locations including Turkey, Mexico, Kenya and many countries in Africa and Latin America are currently on the red list. The other European countries with mandatory quarantine involving hotel detentions -- Ireland and Norway -- have amended their schemes so fully vaccinated travellers are exempt from needing to quarantine. If PGMBM's claim was successful, not only would double-vaccinated travellers no longer have to quarantine at the hotels, but the government could also be forced to refund the fees of all those who were vaccinated and still had to stay there. It is estimated more than 100,000 people have been forced to quarantine in hotels since the policy came into force in February this year. PGMBM said it was launching a legal case, representing "multiple" clients. It described the policy as an "unlawful deprivation of liberty" that violated fundamental human rights. It is now asking anyone who was forced to stay in hotel quarantine to register their details and help form a class action aimed at forcing the government to reverse its policy. One of the firm's clients, Ozgur Akyuz, a bus driver from Hackney, said his pregnant wife and three-year-old daughter caught Covid while staying in hotel quarantine two weeks ago. "They were put in a hotel near Heathrow and it was filthy. She was crying all day long," he said. "She saw a rat in her room and kept being served bacon and sausages, even though she told them she didn't eat pork. "I ended up cooking food at home to take to her, and I also bought a rat trap from B&Q to give her peace of mind because the hotel did nothing." Mr Akyuz said both his wife and daughter tested positive for Covid on the third day of quarantine, despite having tested negative when they left Turkey. "They were allowed home after 10 days but I then caught Covid from them. So we have all had it. If she had come home to quarantine, chances are none of us would have got it." The government has said it has taken "decisive action" to protect the country, including the quarantine system. Other countries around the world had taken equivalent action, it said. This is the second case PGMBM has brought about quarantine hotels. The first was on the grounds of financial hardship and resulted in the government offering the option to pay in 12 monthly instalments for those facing financial hardship. [GN] UNITED STATES: Black Civil Servants Vow to Press on With Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- cbc.ca reports that Carol Sip spent three decades inside the federal public service, but her retirement plaque is the last thing she wants to see on her wall. Instead it sits stored away in the original packaging. "Why would I hang it up? It will only bring back awful memories," Sip said. "It should be something that you should be proud of, but I'm not proud of it because I know what I went through." Sip is one of a group Black federal employees involved in a proposed class-action lawsuit launched last December against the federal government alleging years of discrimination and seeking some $2.5 billion in damages. Earlier this year, federal employee Monica Agard broke her silence about being Black in the public service after a senior colleague at the Immigration and Refugee Board's Toronto office allegedly praised "the good old days when we had slaves." Since then, the proposed class-action lawsuit has become one step closer to reality after a motion was filed for it to be certified. It will fall to the newly elected government to decide whether to challenge that. But as Canadians head to the polls, the Liberals appear to be changing course on the issue with a policy plank promising support for Black workers. The federal government had maintained that its workers could find help through the employee assistance and health-care programs, which the plaintiffs have long said fail to address the specific trauma of anti-Black racism. Now, if elected, the Liberal Party says in its platform it will "establish a mental health fund for Black public servants, and support career advancement, training, sponsorship, and educational opportunities for Black workers." Party spokesperson Alex Wellstead wouldn't explicitly say if a Liberal government would support certifying the class action to go forward, but acknowledged "Black Canadians face unique challenges when it comes to mental health in the workplace. "That is why we've committed through our platform to work with community partners on the design and establishment of this fund, which directly responds to calls from Black employees in the public service and will ensure that Black public servants are supported." As the employer of the federal public service, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat said the courts have not set a timetable for next steps on certifying the suit and that at this stage, it would be "premature" to comment. Lawyer Hugh Scher, who's assisting with the suit, hopes whichever party forms government will work with Black civil servants to address their needs. "If they do, then they will have a willing partner," he said. "If they don't, then they will have a worthy adversary in court." 'A Living Nightmare' Sip's ordeal began in the early 1980s, shortly after she became an employee at the federal customs department under what is now the Canada Revenue Agency. Over a number of years spent working there, she says she experienced repeated incidents of harassment and discrimination by a supervisor who behaved with impunity. [GN] UNITED STATES: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class of Air Force Veterans ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JOHNSON and JANE DOE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FRANK KENDALL, Secretary of the Air Force, Case No. 3:21-cv-01214-VLB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiffs propose a class of: "all Air Force veterans who: (a) received less-than-Honorable discharges from the Air Force (this includes General and Other-than-Honorable discharges from the Air Force and Air Force Reserve and Bad Conduct discharges from special court- martials); (b) were discharged within the last fifteen years or, if discharged more than fifteen years ago, received a discharge upgrade decision from the AFDRB within the last six years; (c) have not received discharge upgrades to Honorable; and (d) have mental health conditions including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), PTSD- related conditions, or Traumatic Brain Injury ("TBI"), or have experiences of military sexual trauma ("MST") or intimate partner violence ("IPV"), that have resulted in a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or have records documenting one or more of the aforementioned experiences or conditions." Mr. Frank Kendall is the 26th Secretary of the Air Force. In this role, Mr. Kendall leads the Department of the Air Force, comprised of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Z1LPCS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Bassali, Esq. Yael Caplan, Esq. Bardia Faghihvaseghi, Esq. Alexis Kallen, Esq. Shariful Khan, Esq. Meghan E. Brooks, Esq. Michael J. Wishnie, Esq. VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES CLINIC JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION Yale Law School † P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090 Telephone: (203) 432-4800 E-mail: michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org - and - Susan J. Kohlmann, Esq. Jeremy M. Creelan, Esq. Jacob Tracer, Esq. Laurel A. Raymond, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-3908 Telephone: (212) 891-1678 E-mail: jcreelan@jenner.com UNITED STATES: Mossman Seeks to Certify Class of Landlords ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASA MOSSMAN, et. al., v. U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00028-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule23(a) and, particularly, 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 23(a): 1. certifying a class of plaintiffs defined as follows: "All those residential landlords threatened with criminal prosecution and denied access to state courts for eviction of tenants for non-payment of rent as a result of the CDC Order;" and 2. appointing John J. Vecchione and Jared McClain of the New Civil Liberties Alliance appointed as class counsel. The Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and Rochelle P. Walensky, Sherri A. Berger, and Xavier Becerra, in their respective official capacities, to restore their property rights and remove a cloud over their own property rights to their rights to access state courts and to not be prosecuted for any attempt to remove tenants by eviction. The Plaintiffs are the National Association of Rental Property Managers, the National Apartment Association, Asa Mossman, Winston Tracy Mills, Chris and Tomika Allen, Dennis R. and Roseanne D. Norton, Emanuel and Jessica John, Harold and Sarah Schoeffler, Schoeffler Real Estate Holdings Co., LLC, Kendra Kessinger, Titan's Creek, LLC, Butler Plantations, LLC, Richard McConkie, Shraddha Kanak, 7M Apartments LLC, 7M Real Estate LLC, and Steve and Susan Harrison. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the national public health agency of the United States. It is a United States federal agency, under the Department of Health and Human Services, and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tNR7NH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Vecchione, Esq. Jared McClain, Esq. NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE 1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: John.Vecchione@ncla.legal Jared.McClain@ncla.legal - and - Alan R. Ostergren, Esq. THE KIRKWOOD INSTITUTE, INC. 3500 Locust Street, Suite 199 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Telephone: (515) 207-0134 E-mail: alan.ostergren@kirkwoodinstitute.org UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Davis FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Hope Davis, Plaintiff v. Universal Protection Services, LLC D/B/A Allied Universal Security Services, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-01758 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses the case. Introduction Federal jurisdiction in the case was invoked under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p. The FCRA regulates consumer reporting agencies that compile and disseminate personal information about consumers. Under the Act, there is a cause of action for consumers to sue and recover damages for certain violations. In the Plaintiff's Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint ("SASC"), which is the operative complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the FCRA makes it presumptively unlawful to obtain and use a consumer report for employment purposes unless the employer complies with the FCRA's notice requirements. The Plaintiff has specifically alleged that the Defendant violated Section 1681b(b)(3) by denying employment opportunities to the Plaintiff based wholly or partly on her consumer report without first providing her with notice and a copy of the report. The Plaintiff filed her complaint on behalf of an "Adverse Action Class," seeking statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and the putative class. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's failure to provide her with copies of her consumer report and pre-adverse action notice was in violation of the requirements set forth by Section 1681b(b)(3), depriving her of a meaningful opportunity to learn what the report contained and to discuss its contents with the Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff argues that she only obtained a copy of the consumer report by requesting it herself directly from the reporting agency, Sterling. Background The Plaintiff filed her original Complaint on April 2, 2020. The Defendant moved to dismiss the individual and class allegations that fell outside of the two-year limitations period for FCRA claims as well as the individual and class allegations, contending that Defendant did not provide Plaintiff or putative class members with a copy of their FCRA rights. The Court granted the dismissal of the individual and class allegations of Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii) regarding the Defendant's alleged failure to provide a summary of FCRA rights, without prejudice and with leave to amend, but denied the Defendant's request to dismiss or strike class allegations. The Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint Soon after, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which the Plaintiff opposed. Discovery proceeded. While these motions were pending, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, to which the Plaintiff responded. Despite this somewhat complex procedural status, and without ruling on all of the pending motions, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to file a Substituted Amended Complaint, but did allow her to file, with proper support, a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Supplemental Complaint ("SASC"). The Court required the SASC to include a detailed explanation about the underlying facts of the alleged "mistake" made by the Plaintiff in the original Complaint. The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File the SASC on June 28, 2021. The Defendant answered the SASC. Plaintiff's Actual Allegations The Plaintiff applied to work as a security guard on Tulane University's campus in August 2019 and was conditionally offered employment pending the successful completion of a background check. The Defendant, Allied, obtained the Plaintiff's consumer report from a reporting agency, Sterling, which had designated her as "Level 2." This designation prevented a conditional hire from starting employment and indicated that the application needed further review. Sometime after Aug. 15, 2019, the Plaintiff called the employer to ask about the status of her application. The employer informed her she did not get the job because "something had come up on her background check." According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not provide her with a pre-adverse action notice, including a copy of her consumer report, before or after informing her she did not get the job. In January 2020, the Plaintiff again applied for a security position with Defendant and was, again, conditionally offered employment pending a background check. Again, the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's consumer report from Sterling, which again listed her at the "Level 2" designation. She called the employer to follow up regarding her start date and was told by an Allied supervisor that the Plaintiff could not be hired because she had a felony on her background report and the felony must be expunged for her to be hired. The Defendant emailed Plaintiff a "Criminal History Disclosure Form," but did not include a copy of the Plaintiff's consumer report. The SASC does not indicate what the Plaintiff did with the disclosure form. Notably, the Plaintiff, in the SASC, pleads that she was "ineligible" for employment for both positions. Further, she does not allege that the Level 2 coding was improper or inaccurate. Likewise, the SASC does not deny that the Plaintiff has a criminal record. Rather, the Plaintiff admits that she was told she was not hired because of her criminal record, but never pleads this fact was inaccurate. Discussion The primary issue concerns whether the Plaintiff has standing to sue the Defendant for its alleged violations of the FCRA in light of Third Circuit precedents and the recent Supreme Court decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021). Also pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class. Judge Baylson (1) concludes that the Plaintiff does not have standing, and the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) alternatively, even if the Plaintiff does have standing, he grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss the case for that reason. A. Article III Standing Article III of the Constitution is built on the concept of separation of powers and confines the federal judicial power to resolving "cases" and "controversies." SFor there to be a case or controversy under Article III, the plaintiff must have standing. The Plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of demonstrating that she has Article III standing. To establish standing, the Plaintiff must show that she (1) suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant, and (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by judicial relief. At issue in the case is the requirement of the Plaintiff demonstrating that she suffered concrete harm sufficient to establish Article III standing. Concrete harms are "real, and not abstract." Intangible harms can also be concrete, including reputational harms. Judge Baylson explains that the Supreme Court explained in TransUnion that for standing purposes, there is an important distinction between "(i) a plaintiff's statutory cause of action to sue a defendant over the defendant's violation of federal law, and (ii) a plaintiff's suffering concrete harm because of the defendant's violation of federal law." Congress may enact legal obligations or prohibitions and create causes of action for plaintiffs to sue those who violate them. However, pursuant to Article III, an injury in law is not necessarily an injury in fact and, thus, only plaintiffs who have shown that they suffered concrete harm by a defendant's statutory violation have standing to sue that defendant in federal court. Furthermore, the mere risk of future harm, without more, is not sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing in a damages suit. Judge Baylson holds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue her FCRA claim. The facts show that she suffered no "concrete harm" due to any act or omission by the Defendant. Considering the entire record, in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was not hired by the Defendant because of her criminal history, not because of the alleged FCRA violation. The Defendant's failure to send her a copy of her consumer report is a mere procedural error, like the "formatting error" discussed in TransUnion, or the "procedural error" discussed in Long. Even if the Plaintiff had received a copy of her consumer report, it would have done her no good, because, crucially, she admits that she has a criminal record and that she was ineligible for employment. Thus, the alleged lack of opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about the report's contents cannot be proximately connected to any concrete harm. The Plaintiff concedes several important points in her pleadings and other parts of the record. For example, the Plaintiff knew she had a criminal record when she applied to the two job openings. Judge Baylson interprets the SASC to show that the Plaintiff knew she was ineligible for employment. Moreover, the Plaintiff admitted the existence of multiple criminal charges and time spent in jail during her deposition. These admissions require Judge Baylson to conclude that the Plaintiff entered the application process understanding that she was ineligible for employment, and therefore did not suffer any concrete harm because of the allegedly flawed FCRA notification procedures. B. Summary Judgment Alternatively, if the Plaintiff does have standing, Judge Baylson now considers the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and concludes that the Defendant's Motion is granted. In considering a motion for summary judgment, courts must view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Accordingly, the non-movant's evidence is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the non-movant's favor. In addition, determinations of credibility, weighing of evidence, and drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are functions of a jury, not those of a judge. In the alternative, Judge Baylson holds that even if the Plaintiff did have standing, he would grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on two grounds: (i) the Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action; and/or (ii) the Plaintiff cannot show causation. As to the first ground, the Judge finds that Allied's preliminary "Level 2" code calls for further investigation and evaluation before any adverse action is intended or carried out. As to the second ground, even if the Plaintiff could show an adverse action, she still cannot show causation. Like the Plaintiff's failure to have standing, her failure to get the job was not caused by any act or omission by the Defendant that violated the FCRA. The Plaintiff admitted that she is often untruthful on job applications. And, since it appears undisputed that the Plaintiff did in fact have a prior criminal record, the Plaintiff cannot show that the employment outcome would have been different even if the Defendant had notified the Plaintiff appropriately with a copy of her consumer report. Since the Plaintiff cannot show the threshold causal connection between her alleged injury and the Defendant's purportedly unlawful conduct, summary judgment should be granted. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baylson dismisses the case for lack of standing, and therefore jurisdiction. Alternatively, even if the Plaintiff does have standing, the Judge finds that the Defendant has met its burden in moving for summary judgment, and he would dismiss the case on that basis as well. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/28pa2cha from Leagle.com. UPS SUPPLY: Dismissal of Hughes' Unpaid Wages Class Claim Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MARION HUGHES; JAMES A. CRUME; PHILLIP L. WESTERN; RAYMOND S. BATTS; AND TERRI A. ROGERS, Appellants v. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; AND DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE 1-10, Appellees, Case No. 2019-CA-1457-MR (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirms the April 26, 2019 order of the Jefferson Circuit Court. That order granted the motion by UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., and UPS, Inc., for a judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the Unpaid Wages class claim. Marion Hughes, Raymond S. Batts, James A. Crume, Terri A. Rogers, and Phillip L. Western, As the Lead Plaintiffs for the Class, have appealed from the April 26, 2019, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting UPS' motion for a judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the Unpaid Wages class claim. The claim has been before the Court on three earlier appeals, albeit related to class certification. Kentucky's Wages and Hours Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 337, allows a plaintiff who is not compensated by his or her employer for performing tasks which are compensable to recover payment for the time spent performing such tasks -- along with liquidated damages and attorney's fees. In 2007, the Appellees filed a putative class action against UPS. In their complaint, they alleged that they and other employees of UPS were required to enter workplace facilities through mandatory security checkpoints before clocking in and to exit through the security checkpoints after clocking out each day. The Appellees alleged that they were not paid wages for time spent at the security checkpoints and that UPS violated Kentucky's Wages and Hours Act by failing to compensate employees for work time. They filed a motion for class certification. The proposed class was defined as consisting of all nonexempt UPS employees employed in the Commonwealth during the applicable limitations period. By order entered July 27, 2012, the circuit court denied the purported class representatives' motion for class certification. They filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, the purported class representatives filed a motion to amend, seeking to certify a more limited class. The new putative class was defined as all nonexempt UPS employees who worked at the following locations: Elizabethtown, Louisville, Technical & Logistics Center, and Worldport during the applicable limitations period. By opinion and order entered Oct. 9, 2012, the circuit court concluded that the more limited class also failed to meet the prerequisites and conditions of the rules of procedure governing class actions. Consequently, the court declined to certify the limited class. A second notice of appeal was filed. The appeals were consolidated by an order of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky entered on Nov. 27, 2012. It vacated the circuit court's order denying class certification of the more narrowly defined class and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Upon remand, it instructed the circuit court to determine whether the limited class satisfied the remaining prerequisites for class certification pursuant to two other provisions of CR 23.01 -- numerosity and adequacy of representation. Upon remand, UPS filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. UPS contended that the unpaid wages claims of the proposed class members could not be pursued through a class action because the provisions of Kentucky's Wages and Hours law did not permit such actions. Following a hearing conducted on Aug. 15, 2014, the Jefferson Circuit Court denied the motion of UPS for judgment on the pleadings. The court determined that given this large number of potential plaintiffs, joinder was impracticable. It concluded that the proposed class plainly met the numerosity prerequisite of CR 23.01. It also concluded that the adequacy of representation prerequisite of CR 23.01 had been satisfied. The circuit court further found that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the proposed class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. These findings comported with the requirements of CR 23.02(c). Having determined that the proposed limited class satisfied one of the three conditions provided by CR 23.02, the circuit court certified the putative class on Aug. 15, 2014. UPS then filed this appeal. Hence, the circuit court clearly complied with the Court of Appeals of Kentucky's directive to it upon remand. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed class certification. Its opinion became final on Feb. 6, 2019. On remand, UPS filed a renewed motion for a partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the time for which the Class was seeking compensation -- time spent waiting for and undergoing security screenings -- was not compensable under Kentucky law. In its response, the Class objected to the motion, arguing that KRS Chapter 337 does not contain any reference to the FLSA's Portal-to-Portal Act, meaning that Kentucky had not adopted those exceptions. In reply, UPS argued that KRS Chapter 337 and the FLSA should be interpreted consistently and that the Portal-to-Portal Act was meant to clarify that compensable work did not include the time an employee spent walking to and from his workstation or other preliminary or postliminary activities, citing Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442, 447, 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1042, 194 L. Ed. 2d 124 (2016). The holding in Integrity Staffing, UPS argued, controlled in the case. The court heard oral arguments from the parties in early April, and on April 26, 2019, it entered an order granting the motion by UPS. The Class moved the court to clarify the April 26, 2019, order to show that it dismissed only a narrow portion of the claim that a jury might find was attributable to travel or, alternatively, to make that order final and appealable. The court scheduled a status conference for Sept. 18, 2019, where it heard arguments from counsel. By order entered that day, it denied the motion to clarify and granted the Class's alternative motion to make the April 19, 2019, order final and appealable. The instant appeal now follows. On appeal, the Class continues to argue that the federal Portal-to-Portal Act has not been adopted in Kentucky and therefore cannot support the circuit court's ruling; that, even if it applied, the court's dismissal was in error due to the lack of discovery and the existence of disputed questions of material fact; and that the court erred in preventing the Class from presenting all of its theories of liability to a jury. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky finds no merit in these arguments. For its first argument, the Class contends that the Portal-to-Portal Act has not been adopted into Kentucky law because that language was not specifically adopted by the General Assembly in KRS Chapter 337. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky has considered the parties' arguments and caselaw cited in their respective briefs. Based upon its review, it agrees with the interpretation of Kentucky's Wage and Hours laws as set forth in Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc., 852 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2017). and hold that the circuit court properly ruled that security screenings at issue constituted preliminary and postliminary activities that were not part of the workers' principal activity in their work for UPS and therefore were not compensable. Therefore, the Class' Unpaid Wages claim could not be maintained and was properly dismissed. Next, the Class argues that, even if the Portal-to-Portal Act exception were to be read into KRS Chapter 337, the circuit court still erred in dismissing the Unpaid Wages class claim due to lack of discovery and the existence of disputed material facts. In its brief, the Class listed questions of material fact as including whether UPS' mandatory security locations were job sites, whether the Class members were required to report to the mandatory security locations for instructions, whether the Class members performed work by participating in security procedures, whether the security procedures were a principal duty, whether the security procedures were for UPS' benefits, and whether the security procedures could be eliminated. In response, UPS cites to City of Pioneer Village, 104 S.W.3d at 759, in which the Supreme Court of Kentucky explained the purpose of a CR 12.03 motion for a judgment on the pleadings. It argues that dismissal was still warranted because the time for which the Class was seeking compensation remained noncompensable as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky agrees and finds no merit in the Class' argument to the contrary. Finally, the Class argues that the circuit court's ruling prevented it from presenting all of its liability theories to the jury, stating that the jury could have found that the time was compensable under such a theory as "waiting time." UPS responds that the Class did not attempt to establish a set of facts to show that the Class members were "engaged to" pass through security checkpoints or that undergoing these security screenings constituted an integral part of their job. Again, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky finds no merit in the Class's argument. For the foregoing reasons, the order dismissing the Unpaid Wages class claim is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 3, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/7xn3pfew from Leagle.com. Andrew J. Horne -- ahorne@msapc.net -- Louisville, Kentucky, Michael D. Grabhorn, Andrew M. Grabhorn, in Louisville, Kentucky, Briefs for the Appellants. C. Laurence Woods III -- lwoods@fbtlaw.com -- Kyle D. Johnson -- kjohnson@fbtlaw.com -- in Louisville, Kentucky, Mark A. Perry, Washington, D.C., Julian W. Kleinbrodt, in San Francisco, California, Brief for Appellees UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC., and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lutz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virgin Galactic, LLC. The case is styled as Zachary James Lutz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Virgin Galactic, LLC, Case No. BCV-21-102063 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 2, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Virgin Galactic -- https://www.virgingalactic.com/ -- is an American spaceflight company founded by Richard Branson and his British Virgin Group retains an 18% stake through Virgin Investments Limited.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 VITA LOCATORS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Price Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA PRICE, v. VITA LOCATORS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01868-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Christine M. Arguello Judge entered an order: 1. certifying the proposed Settlement Class for the sole purpose of effectuating the Parties' Settlement, consisting of: "individuals who worked for Vita Locators, LLC as apartment locators at any time between January 1, 2018 and May 17, 2021;" 2. finding that: (a) the Parties' Settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (b) the Parties judge the settlement to be fair and reasonable; (c) serious questions of law and fact exist and place the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; and (d) the value of immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation. 3. preliminarily approving the Settlement; 4. appointing Plaintiff Victoria Price as the Class Representative for the Class; 5. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Claire Hunter and Adam Harrison of HKM Employment Attorneys LLP as Class Counsel; 6. approving the Notice and Opt-out forms attached to the Motion to be sent to the Settlement Class Members; 7. authorizing notice to be sent to the Settlement Class 8. directing Class Counsel to file a joint motion seeking final approval of the Settlement no less than 14 days before the Final Fairness Hearing; and 9. setting a two-hour Final Fairness Hearing for December 20, 2021, at 10:00 AM. Class Counsel shall include this date on the Notices sent to the Settlement Class; and 10. denying as moot the Defendant Andrew Wiggin's motion to dismiss first amended individual, collective and class action complaint and jury demand. Vita is a free apartment finding service in the Denver, Colorado metro. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kfAaIA at no extra charge.[CC] WATERDROP INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 15 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Waterdrop Inc. ("Waterdrop" or the "Company") (NYSE: WDH) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's May 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Waterdrop investors have until November 15, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Waterdrop 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/waterdrop-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 May 2021, Waterdrop completed its IPO, selling 30 million ADSs at $12.00 per share. Then, on June 17, 2021, Waterdrop reported its financial results for the quarter that closed before the IPO, disclosing among other results, that the Company's operating costs and expenses had increased over 75%, or around RMB579.1 million, to RMB1,343.9 million (US$205.1 million). As a result, the Company reported an operating loss for the quarter of RMB460.6 million (US$70.3 million), a four-fold increase over the prior year period. Then, on August 11, 2021, media outlets reported that the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission directed insurance companies to terminate improper marketing and pricing practices and improve their user privacy protections. Bloomberg reported that "[r]egulators have since moved to shutter some operations including mutual aid healthcare platforms operated by Waterdrop." Then, on September 8, 2021, Waterdrop announced that its operating losses for the quarter ended June 30, 2021 had continued to increase, totaling RMB815.4 million (US$126.3 million), compared with an operating profit of RMB7.2 million for the same period of 2020. On September 13, 2021, the Company's ADSs dropped to a low of just $3 per ADS, or 75% below the IPO price. The complaint filed alleges that 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) Waterdrop had achieved a substantial portion of its historical revenue growth through illicit means that ran afoul of Chinese rules and regulations governing the insurance industry; (2) Waterdrop had been ordered by the Chinese government to shut down its mutual aid platform because of its failure to comply with Chinese law; (3) Waterdrop was under investigation by regulatory authorities for continued violations of Chinese law; (4) as a result of the foregoing, there existed a material undisclosed risk and substantial likelihood that Waterdrop would face severe adverse reactions by regulatory authorities following the IPO; (5) Waterdrop's operating losses had increased more than four-fold in the first quarter of 2021 as a result of the cessation of its mutual aid business and rapidly growing customer acquisition costs; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the registration statement's representations regarding Waterdrop's historical financial and operational metrics and purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business, operations, and financial results and trajectory of the Company in the lead up to the IPO, were materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Waterdrop ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than November 15, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, 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. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210916005121/en/ [GN] WATERDROP INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Waterdrop Inc. (NYSE: WDH) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: May 4, 2021 - Sept. 14, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 15, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/WDH Contact An Attorney Now: WDH@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Waterdrop Inc. (WDH) Securities Class Action: The complaint alleges that Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions in Waterdrop's May 2021 initial public offering documents, which enabled Waterdrop to raise $360 million in gross proceeds. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Waterdrop had revenue growth through illicit methods; (ii) PRC regulators had ordered Waterdrop to shut down its mutual aid platform; (iii) Waterdrop's operating losses had increased significantly as a result of the cessation of its mutual aid business and rapidly growing customer acquisition costs; and (iv) Waterdrop was under investigation for continued violations of Chinese law. The truth began to emerge on June 17, 2021, when Waterdrop announced disappointing Q1 2021 financial results (i.e., the quarter before the IPO). The Company revealed that its operating expenses ballooned 75%, due largely to the cessation of its mutual aid business and growing customer acquisition costs. Then, on Aug. 11, 2021, multiple news outlets reported that the PRC regulators had ordered insurance companies to cease improper marketing and pricing practices. Bloomberg reported "[r]egulators have since moved to shutter some operations including mutual aid healthcare platforms operated by Waterdrop." Finally, on Sept. 8, 2021, Waterdrop reported its operating losses for Q2 2021 continued to accelerate, again blaming the dismal results on a whopping 160% increase in operating costs and expenses compared to Q2 2020. By Sept. 13, 2021, the price of Waterdrop ADSs closed at $3.01, or roughly 75% below the $12.00 IPO price. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Waterdrop's IPO documents concealed known regulatory risks and adverse business trends," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Waterdrop, 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 Waterdrop 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 mailto:WDH@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. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN] WE MAKE DOUGH: Garcia Seeks Unpaid OT Wages & Spread of Hours Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WE MAKE DOUGH, INC. and RICHARD ALBANO d/b/a RITCHIE'S PIZZA OF DEER PARK and COMMACK, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04972 (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of hours pay, and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from in or about 2016 to in or about June 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants did not pay him overtime premium for all hours worked each workweek in excess of 40 per week at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, as well as spread-of-hours pay for each day in which his spread of hours exceeded 10 hours. He further contends that the Defendants failed to provide him with an accurate statement, and with written notice in his native language of his rate of pay and other information. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com WILLAMETTE VALLEY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in "Kelley" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE KELLEY, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Members, v. WILLAMETTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02196-SB (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification to be filed on or before June 27, 2022. 2. The Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification due 35 days after the motion for Rule 23 class certification is filed. 3. The Plaintiffs reply in support of Rule 23 certification is due 21 days following Defendant's response, if any. 4. The Court will reset other case management deadlines after resolution of the motion for class certification. Willamette Valley Medical Center, LLC was founded in 2008. The Company's line of business includes providing general medical and surgical hospital services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 14, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZahNNi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com WISCONSIN: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Unemployment Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Koran, writing for Wisconsin Watch, reports that Tracy Long of Fond du Lac County is no stranger to Wisconsin's unemployment system. With 30 years of experience in manufacturing, she's been subject to the ebbs and flows of the industry. Long says she has applied for unemployment aid dozens of times in the past three decades. But after a workplace injury that resulted in three back surgeries in as many years left her unable to complete many of the tasks she'd previously performed, in 2019 she turned to the state's unemployment system for relief -- one that would soon be strained close to its breaking point by the pandemic. This time, however, due to her disability, the system that in years past helped keep her afloat barred her from the aid meant to help jobless workers weather employment gaps. Owing to a 2013 law passed by a Republican-controlled legislature, Wisconsin bars workers who receive federal Social Security Disability Insurance benefits from simultaneously collecting state unemployment aid. Labor experts say such a ban exists in only one other state. "I'm backed so far into a corner, and it's something I can no longer comprehend anymore or do on my own," said Long, 50. At one point, she says an adjudicator with the Department of Workforce Development had accused her of fraud for benefits she had previously received -- a charge that was later cleared. But Long was still required to pay back an alleged overpayment. With the help of Madison attorney Victor Forberger, Long and seven other plaintiffs ofiled a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Madison hoping to recoup the unemployment benefits they and other people with disabilities in Wisconsin were denied -- and undo the law that barred them from accessing the aid. According to the suit, roughly 157,000 SSDI recipients work in Wisconsin, or one out of every 17 workers. The law enacted in 2013 and revised in 2015 prevents these workers from collecting benefits after they are laid off. The lawsuit asks for an injunction halting enforcement of the law while the case is pending. At a press conference in Madison, Forberger said the state's interpretation and application of Wisconsin's unemployment compensation eligibility statute is unconstitutional and violates federal law that bans discrimination based on a person's disability. "The goal here is to have disabled people treated like everyone else," Forberger told Wisconsin Watch. "This is discrimination against those with disabilities because the state has said, 'You know, because you get SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) benefits -- which you are only get because you're disabled -- you can't get unemployment benefits'. . . That's just basically wrong." DWD said it was aware of the complaint and pointed out that Gov. Tony Evers has tried to reverse the law, but it was blocked by Republicans who run the state Legislature. Democratic lawmakers are also seeking to change the law. "A fix to the Social Security Disability Insurance issue was included in the governor's proposed 2021-23 biennial budget," said DWD spokesperson Jennifer Sereno. "This item was removed by Republicans in the Legislature during the (budget) process." The lawsuit comes a year after Wisconsin's DWD, which administers unemployment benefits, reversed course on its policy to deny Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) to workers who lost their jobs due to the pandemic who also were receiving federal disability benefits. That reversal followed a 2020 Wisconsin Watch/WPR report that revealed Wisconsin was denying PUA benefits to workers with disabilities. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, along with 26 other Republican lawmakers, claimed in a 2013 letter that collecting disability and unemployment benefits simultaneously represented "double dipping" that "may constitute fraud." Labor and unemployment insurance expert George Wentworth previously told Wisconsin Watch that North Carolina is the only other state with such a ban. SSDI guidelines allow and even encourage those who receive disability benefits to supplement their income with part-time work, so long as the employee does not earn more than $1,310 a month. The federal program is set up for those who have worked and paid Social Security taxes but can no longer perform "substantially gainful activity." That includes workers like Evan Johnson, a 55-year-old former truck driver who lives in Central Wisconsin's village of Weston. Johnson said he had been driving full time until 2015, when he broke his leg while helping a friend cut down a tree. After taking time off to heal, Johnson worked part-time when the pain didn't keep him off the job, but eventually lost his job after the pandemic hit. In 2020, Johnson said he received a letter from the department telling him he was ineligible to collect unemployment because he received SSDI benefits. He eventually received PUA benefits, but used most of that to pay off the credit card debt he racked up paying for basic expenses like food, gas, electricity and health insurance. "I knew it was going to be a long battle, but never in my wildest dreams did I think the Department of Workforce Development would take 14 months getting me (PUA benefits)," he said, referring to the federal aid that ended Sept. 4. "When you're living on credit cards and trying to make ends meet, it doesn't work so well when you're sitting there waiting for any type of income." Forberger said because workers with disabilities cannot collect unemployment benefits, the state is essentially encouraging employers -- who pay for their former workers' unemployment benefits -- to discriminate based on workers' disabilities. "Wisconsin has, to its shame, created a perverse incentive for employers to lay off disabled workers first," he said. This story was produced as part of the NEW (Northeast Wisconsin) News Lab. The nonprofit Wisconsin Watch (wisconsinwatch.org) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, PBS Wisconsin, other news media and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by Wisconsin Watch do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates. [GN] YOSEIRY GROCERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR RAIMUNDO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOSEIRY GROCERY STORE INC. (d/b/a YOSEIRY GROCERY STORE); ADRIANA ARISTY; and JULIO CASTILLO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07486 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Perez was employed by the Defendants as delivery worker. YOSEIRY GROCERY STORE INC. owns and operates a grocery store located at Bronx, New York, under the name "Yoseiry Grocery Store." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 [*] Kutak Rock Attorneys Discuss Dismissed Bank Fee Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a case decided September 8, 2021 by the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, a team of Kutak Rock litigators including Jess Askew III, Fred Davis, McKenzie Raub, and Andrew King secured a decision leading to the dismissal of a class action against a regional bank client. The court's ruling rejected class-action claims alleging a breach of contract with respect to overdraft and insufficient funds fees. This is the first known dismissal of this type of class-action case in the state of Arkansas. In this recent dismissal, the Court determined that the contract was unambiguous and clearly explained the customer's obligations regarding overdrafts and insufficient funds: "The Plaintiffs failure to have sufficient funds in the account is the reason for the denial of payment and the fee charged each time the payment is rejected for insufficient funds. This agreement as part of the contract is clear and unambiguous." Over the past two years, Kutak Rock attorneys have responded to six consumer class-action lawsuits regarding bank and credit union account fees. A total of sixteen such cases have been filed in Arkansas during that time. Eight of those are still pending. Kutak Rock's efforts have resulted in the dismissal of all six of the cases it has defended, representing an unparalleled record of success in Arkansas. Kutak Rock's team of class-action litigators includes Fred Davis, Andrew King, Kyle Unser, Jess Askew III, Andrew Tarvin and McKenzie Raub. [GN] ********* 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 ***